← Library
Bombay High CourtIA/1462/2024disposed off

Kumar Shankar Karajagi v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025-08-06Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse2 pages

by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2025.08.08 11:10:25 +0530 VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU 4-ia-1462-2024-ba-1901-2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

varsha CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1462 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1901 OF 2017 Kumar Shankar Karajagi ... Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Vijay Upadhyay a/w. Mr. Omkar Geedh, Ms. Asha Kanzariya for Applicant in IA/1462/24.

Mr. K.C. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Deepak Chavan, Head Constable, Solapur City Crime Branch. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 6th AUGUST 2025 ORDER:

1.

This application is filed for relaxation of the condition imposed while granting bail on 28th November 2017. Learned APP points out that this application is filed with vague averments, without mentioning which condition is to be relaxed.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that condition no. (ii), directing the applicant to attend the concerned police station, needs to be relaxed as the investigation is completed and Page no. 1 of 2

4-ia-1462-2024-ba-1901-2017.doc chargesheet is already filed. He submits that the charge is not yet framed and thus, the condition imposed to attend the police station need not be continued.

3.

Learned APP rightly points out the order dated 10th January 2025, passed for rejecting the application for cancellation of bail. He submits that while rejecting the application for cancellation of bail, this court has confirmed the conditions that the applicant shall attend the police station and the court dates regularly. He thus, submits that there is no reason now to again re-agitate on the point of relaxation of the conditions.

4.

In view of the order dated 10th January 2025 passed in Interim Application No. 4436 of 2022 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1901 of 2017, I see no reason to relax the conditions as orally argued by the learned advocate for the applicant.

5.

The application is therefore dismissed.

(GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2