Mumbai, August 29, 2022 – Santosh Bhikuram Pawar, convicted in a case filed by Rajkumar L. Sonar, has been denied bail by the Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, Greater Bombay. The court cited Pawar’s failure to comply with previous bail conditions as the primary reason for rejecting his application.

Pawar was convicted by the 56th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Sewree, Mumbai, in Complaint Case No. 176/SS/2016. He subsequently filed Criminal Appeal No. 581/2017 before the Sessions Court. Initially, his sentence was suspended on the condition that he deposit 40% of the compensation amount ordered by the trial court within four weeks from February 17, 2018.

Background and Court Proceedings:

Pawar failed to deposit the required compensation amount. Consequently, Sonar filed an application seeking the issuance of an execution warrant. On March 10, 2022, the Sessions Court vacated the order suspending Pawar’s sentence and directed the Magistrate to issue a conviction warrant. Pawar was arrested on July 25, 2022, and subsequently filed Criminal Bail Application No. 1831/2022 on July 26, 2022, seeking bail.

Arguments and Court’s Decision:

Advocate Pratik Shinde, representing Pawar, argued that his client was now ready to pay the compensation amount to Sonar. However, Sonar, represented by Advocate V.S. Mishra, refused to accept the payment and insisted that the court decide the matter.

Additional Sessions Judge Shri V.G. Raghuwanshi noted that Sonar was unwilling to compromise and that Pawar had abused the discretion previously granted to him by failing to comply with the bail conditions.

“In such circumstances, when applicant/appellant had abused discretion exercised in his favour, I do not think it will be proper to again exercise discretion in his favour and therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail,” Judge Raghuwanshi stated in his order.

Consequently, the court rejected Pawar’s bail application.

Implications:

This decision underscores the court’s strict stance against granting bail to appellants who fail to comply with previously imposed bail conditions. The court’s refusal to exercise discretion in favor of Pawar highlights the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences of breaching them. This case also demonstrates the court’s consideration of the complainant’s stance in bail matters, particularly when the appellant has shown a disregard for court directives.