Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Bail Order
Pdf Text: CNR No.MHMM16-008342-2026
ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION BELOW EXH-5 IN
C.C.NO.325/PW/2026 in C.R. No.78/2026 of Parksite Police Station
Through the application in hand accused Satyam Ranjit Singh
sought for release on bail. It is contended that he is falsely implicated in the
alleged offence. It is further submitted that accused is earning member of
their families. There is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the
evidence. He is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the
court.
2] Ld. APP and Investigating Officer through say resisted the
application stating therein that the accused is habitual offenders and many
offences are registered against him in various police stations. If the accused
is released, he would tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses.
Further they submitted that accused will abscond and will not be available
for trial, if released on bail. Hence, prayed for rejection of application.
3] The Ld. APP has relied upon the following Judgments of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in
State of M.P. vs Kajad (2001) SCC 673; wherein it is
held that,
“the habitual offenders are not entitled to bail merely on the
ground of long custody or completion of investigation” and in case of Neeru
Yadav vs State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 wherein it is held that, “while
granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the accused must be considered
seriously and bail should be denied where there is strong possibility of
repetition of offence”.
4] Perused say and the relevant papers. The say filed by Ld. APP
and Investigating Officer prima facie show that many cases are registered
against the said accused in various police stations and he is habitual
offenders. Mere filing of the chargesheet is not ground for releasing the
accused on bail. Under such circumstances, if he would be released on bail
then it could be prejudicial not only to the further progress of the trial but
there is possibility that the accused may flee from the justice or may not
attend the trial. There is likelihood of repeating similar offences by the
accused. Therefore, considering the settled legal position regarding habitual
offenders and ratio laid down in the case laws cited supra, I am inclined to
-- 1 of 2 --
2
hold that the accused is not entitled to enlarge the relief of bail. Hence, the
following order is passed:-
ORDER
1) The application stands rejected.
2) Copy of the order be sent to the accused through mail to the Jail
Authority accordingly.
Date: 06/08/2026 (P. V. Hingne)
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai
PGS/-
-- 2 of 2 --