SUNIL DEVAKINANDAN ZAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant had moved the praecipe to hear his bail application during the vacation. Accordingly, on 03.11.2021 the application was listed for hearing. The prosecutor and IO were absent. Hence, the matter was kept on 05.11.2021.

(2.) On 05.11.2021 learned Spl.PP. Mr. Chavan appreared. He disputed service of summons. According to him, there was no proper service on him as well as Investigating Ofcer, but the matter was heard for some time. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that if the prosecutor is not ready for fnal hearing, then he may be heard for interim relief. Accordingly, the arguments were heard, but those were not concluded. Therefore, as per the request of Spl.PP, the matter was listed today for hearing.

(3.) When the learned counsel for the applicant submitted his argument, he made it clear that he was advancing submissions for fnal hearing as there was sufcient time for hearing. Accordingly, he submitted his arguments. Thereafter, Spl.PP. Mr. Chavan argued the matter for about 1 hour and 45 minutes. He also relied judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court. At the fag end of the argument, he submitted that he argued for the interim relief only. The said fact was objected by the learned counsel for the applicant and the objection has substance.