Manish Raosaheb Shinde v. State Of Maharashtra

12-ABA-1449-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1449 OF 2024 Manish Raosaheb Shinde ...Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

__________ None for the Applicant.

Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent-State. __________ CORAM :

ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

DATE :

6 OCTOBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

None appears for the Applicant. Ms. Supriya Kak, learned APP appears for the Respondent - State. None for the added Respondent/Intervenor.

2.

This matter was called out in the morning session, but none appeared for the applicant. It was called out again after the post-lunch session. However, none appears for the applicant. 3.

This bench is constituted only for today. Although this Anticipatory Bail Application would warrant hearing, it may not be just and fair to pass orders in the absence of the Applicant. In the given situation, deferring the matter today, would become inevitable.

4.

Ms. Kak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the Respondent - State, on instructions, submits that the Applicant appears to be absconding and fleeing from justice. There has been no cooperation whatsoever from the Applicant in the course of the investigation. She Mayur

12-ABA-1449-2024.doc points out that there is no interim order in favour of this Applicant. Considering that the Applicant is not represented today, it would be in the interest of justice, to give one last opportunity to the Applicant by adjourning this proceeding to 13 October 2025. 5.

It is made clear that if the applicant is not present in person or through his Advocate on the adjourned date of hearing, the Court shall proceed to pass appropriate orders, in his absence. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] Mayur