Manoj Kupindar Pawar v. State Of Maharashtra

3 APL 893-25.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 893 OF 2025 Manoj Kupindar Pawar ..Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Mithilesh Mishra i/by Mr. Agastya Desai, for Applicant. Smt. S G Talhar, APP for the Respondent-State. PI - Anand Shahane, Chembur P S.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

12th FEBRUARY 2026 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

2.

The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 01st August, 2024, whereby an application preferred by the applicant to extend the time to furnish surety, came to be rejected. 3.

The applicant was enlarged on bail by an order dated 13th SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.13 14:59:02 +0530 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI March, 2024. The applicant was permitted to furnish provisional cash surety for a period of four weeks. The applicant did not furnish surety within the said period and applications for extension of time to furnish surety were filed. 4.

When the applicant approached the Court of Session for extension of time on the second occasion, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application by the impugned order. SAINATH 1/2

3 APL 893-25.DOC 5.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant had filed an application for bail under an erroneous impression and the said application came to be disposed by an order dated 09th July, 2025. The learned Counsel submits that, the sureties are ready and the applicant can furnish the surety tomorrow.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submission, the impugned order stands modified to the effect that, the time to furnish surety stands extended till 16th February 2026.

7.

The application stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH 2/2