1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2024
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.14173/2023)
DILIP ASHOK MUNDHE APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has challenged the impugned order by which the bail granted by the Court of Sessions was set aside on two grounds, namely, the earlier order passed by the High Court was not complied with and the prior criminal antecedents of the appellant were not duly informed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the co-accused have been granted bail and the appellant has duly surrendered after the impugned order. Insofar as the non-compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court is concerned, it is submitted that at the time of granting of bail by the Court of Sessions, the time limit got expired. Out of the five prior cases, in two, the appellant has been rendered acquittal and two other cases are pertaining to the years 2012 and 2017 respectively. One other case is relatable to the present case.

3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that while considering the antecedents and conduct of the appellant, there is no need to interfere in the impugned order.

4. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order as we find some force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. At the time of the passing of the order by the Court of Sessions, the period of six months had expired. Even with respect to the antecedents, we find that per se will not stand in the way of granting bail especially when the co-accused have been granted bail and the antecedents were pertaining to the earlier years 2012,
2014 and 2017 respectively. Insofar as the other offence committed in 2019 is concerned, the appellant is already on bail and it is related to the present case. 5. He has also surrendered pursuant to the impugned order passed. Even in the present case he has been under incarceration for more than 2 years.
6. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and the appellant is granted bail. Needless to say that the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation. 7. In such view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and t he appellant is, accordingly, directed to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper by the trial Court.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending applications shall stand disposed of.
…………………..J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)
…………………..J.
(S.V.N. BHATTI)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 4, 2024

ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 14173/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-10-2023 in ACB No. 259/2022 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Aurangabad)
DILIP ASHOK MUNDHE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
IA No. 226143/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 226144/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 04-01-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv.
Mr. Shrirang Varma, Adv.
Ms. Kanti, Adv.
Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Ms. Raavi Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant is directed to be released on bail in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.
The appeal is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KAVITA PAHUJA) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)