Bombay High Court
Subramanian Arunmugham Konar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 August, 2025
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
2025:BHC-AS:33555
Mamta Kale 3-appln-191-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Application No. 191 of 2025
Subramanian Arunmugham Konar
Age 44 years, Occ. Private Service,
R/o. Radiant Captive India Pvt Ltd.
Office No.1, 1st Floor, Lalwani Plaza,
Above Union Bank, Sakore Nagar,
Viman Nagar, Pune - 411 014. ... Applicant
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Inspector,
Vimantal (Airport) Police Station, Pune.
2. Shravan Ajit Korde
Age 32 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o. C-Wing, 805, Madhukosh Appt.,
Survey No.4/2, 16 Dhayari Pune-411 041. ...Respondents
----
Mr Narayan G Rokade a/w Mr Siddharth Ghodke a/w Mr
Ramchandra Wagh, for the Applicant.
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2025.08.06
Mr Prashant Jadhav, APP, for Respondent No.1 / State.
20:14:37
+0530
API Sapana Deotale, Vimantal Police Station, Pune, is present.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 6 August 2025
P.C.:
. Heard Mr Narayan Rokade, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Mr Prashant Jadhav,
__________________________________________________
6 August 2025
Mamta Kale 3-appln-191-2025.docx
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing
respondent No.1/ State.
2. The applicant has preferred this application seeking
cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the accused /
respondent No.2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune, by an order dated 28 February 2025, in connection with
C.R. No.10 of 2025 registered at Vimantal Police Station,
Pune, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 409, 407,
406, 405 and 383 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicant's contention is that the learned Judge did
not adequately examine the substantive merits of the
prosecution case and failed to provide the informant / applicant
with a fair opportunity to be heard.
4. In Puran v. Rambilas1, it was enunciated that at the
preliminary bail stage, the Court should not undertake a
detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merits of the case. The primary
consideration lies in the prima facie scrutiny of the material on
record. Furthermore, once granted, the bail should not be
cancelled without compelling or extraordinary circumstances,
such as the risk of jeopardising a fair trial, as highlighted in
(1995) 1 SCC 349
__________________________________________________
6 August 2025
Mamta Kale 3-appln-191-2025.docx
Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana2.
5. Furthermore, in Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya
Pradesh 3, it was held that the law is well settled by a catena of
judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for
grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail
granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is
satisfied that after being released on bail if (a) the accused has
misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of
bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of
statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant
bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or
fraud.
6. Upon perusing the records, it appears that the alleged
offence is reported to have occurred between 1 January 2020
and 14 August 2023 whereas, the FIR has been lodged in the
year 2025. After this, the investigation has been completed,
and the prosecution is in the process of filing the charge sheet.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused /
respondent No.2 interfered or attempted to interfere with the
prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses. The records
(2001) 6 SCC 338
(2024) 4 SCC 222
__________________________________________________
6 August 2025
Mamta Kale 3-appln-191-2025.docx
do not indicate that the accused / respondent No.2 has misused
the bail concession granted to him. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, in accordance with the legal principles, rightly
refrained from entering into the merits of the case, confining
his adjudication to the prima facie material. That apart, at this
stage, investigation concluded, and in the absence of new
compelling ground post pre-arrest bail, this Court does not
accede to the prayer of bail revocation.
7. In light of the above, the application stands rejected.
(R.N. Laddha, J.)
__________________________________________________
6 August 2025
