Minakshi Rana Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:5342 954-ACB-218-25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 218 OF 2025 WITH APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 219 OF 2025 WITH APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 220 OF 2025 MINAKSHI RANA PAWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chandrakant P. Patil APP for Respondent No.1 : Ms. P. V. Diggikar Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Ashish R. Kachole h/f. Ms. Rashmi Kulkarni ...

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 04-02-2026 PER COURT:- 1.

These applications are filed seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents/accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, vide orders passed in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 615, 483, and 482 of 2025. The underlying proceedings arise from Crime No. 0262 of 2025 registered at Muktainagar Police Station, District Jalgaon. The applicant further seeks a direction for the respondents to surrender before the trial court forthwith.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused.

954-ACB-218-25.odt 3.

It is a settled legal principle that bail once granted should not be cancelled lightly unless there are strong, cogent, and overwhelming circumstances, such as the misuse of liberty or a patent illegality in the original order.

4.

In the present case, the allegations leveled against the respondents/accused are general in nature, lacking specific details of their individual roles in the alleged crime. 5.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the specific roles attributed to each accused. Beyond those assertions, the applicant has failed to bring on record any supervening factors, such as tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, that would warrant a revocation of the respondents' liberty. Consequently, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any perversity or legal error, no grounds for interference are made out. 6.

Accordingly, the applications for cancellation of bail stand rejected.

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGE rrd