Bombay High Court
ABASAHEB GALAS KALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The application is allowed; the order dated 11/05/2026 is quashed and the applicant is enlarged on regular bail.
Summary
Abasaheb Galas Kale applied to the Bombay High Court seeking to quash an order dated 11 May 2026 that rejected his bail application and forfeited his bail bonds due to his absence before the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur. He contended that his absence was not intentional and offered to furnish fresh bail bonds and sureties, undertaking to appear regularly for all hearings. The State opposed the application, arguing that Kale had been absent for a considerable period. The Court considered the applicant's undertaking and the circumstances of his absence. It held that the application deserved to be allowed and quashed the impugned order. Consequently, the Court ordered that Kale be enlarged on regular bail in the pending Sessions case.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the bail application and forfeiting bail bonds can be quashed on the ground of non‑intentional absence and a fresh undertaking by the applicant.
Subjects
- bail
- forfeiture of bail bond
- quash order
- criminal procedure
- Sessions Court
- non‑intentional absence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:21956
1932..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1932 OF 2026
Abasaheb Galas Kale … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents
...…
Mr. Majit S. Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent-State
......
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
[VACATION COURT]
DATE : 20th MAY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. By way of the present Application, the Applicant seeks to quash and set
aside the order dated 11.05.2026 below Exh.40 in Sessions Case No.15/2020
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, whereby the
application (Exh.40) preferred by the Applicant for cancellation of NBW and
releasing him on bail came to be rejected on the ground of his absence before
the Trial Court and his bail bonds and sureties also came to be forfeited. After
passing of the said order, the Applicant came to be taken into custody. The
Applicant has also prayed that he be enlarged on bail in the said Sessions Case.
2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP
for the State.
3. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that, the absence of
the Applicant was not intentional. He submits that, the Applicant is ready
and willing to furnish fresh bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the
1932..odt
2
learned Trial Court. He further undertakes that the Applicant will regularly
remain present before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing and will fully
cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the Sessions Case
without seeking unnecessary adjournments. He, therefore, prays that the
Application be allowed.
4. The learned APP opposed the Application on the ground that the
Applicant had remained absent for a considerable period and therefore, he
prays that, the Application be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions advanced and the undertaking given on
behalf of the Applicant, the Application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘A’ which reads as
under:
“A) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated
11/05/2026 below Exh.40 in Sessions Case No.15/2020 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Jude, Shrirampur and
applicant be enlarge on regular bail in connection with the
Crime No.I-395/2018 registered with the Shrirampur City Police
Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar, (Sessions Case No.15/2020 pending
before Ld. Additional Sessions Jude, Shrirampur) and for that
purpose issue necessary directions.”
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
GGP
Checking your session…