SANJAY PUNAMIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant moved this pracipe for extension of interim order passed on 20th August, 2021, which was extended till 18th October, 2021. It appears that the Applicant had submitted the application for pre-arrest bail, wherein, on 20th August, 2021, interim protection was granted to the Applicant and the State was directed not to take coercive action against the Applicant. The said order was continued on 27th August 2021, 17th September 2021, 24th September 2021 and 08th October 2021 respectively. By the order dated 08th October 2021, the matter was listed on 18th October 2021, but 18th October 2021 was declared as a holiday, therefore, the matter was mentioned on 22nd October, 2021 and thereafter it was listed on 27th October 2021. On 27th October 2021, Justice N. W. Sambre passed the order under caption "Not before this Court ". Hence, the matter was mentioned before alternate bench, but it was not taken up for hearing. Thereafter, on 29th October, 2021 the alternate bench has orally allowed the Applicant to move the pracipe before the Vacation Court. Hence, pracipe is submitted for extension of order dated 20th August, 2021.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, the learned APP for the State and learned Counsel Mr. Warunjikar for the Original Informant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the earlier interim order is required to be extended till the next date, so that the hearing of the main application can be proceeded. This Court was incline to hear the main application, but learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the documents are voluminous in number, therefore, he is not in position to proceed with the matter. It appears that the Applicant was seeking extension of interim order since it was passed on 20th August, 2021. It also appears from the record that most of the time the Applicant has changed his lawyer, therefore the hearing of the main application could not take place. Even today, learned Counsel for the Applicant shown his inability to preceed with the matter on the ground that the papers are bulky and due to paucity of time. But this Court has made it clear that the preference would be given to the hearing of this application, but in spite of that, the Counsel for the Applicant was not ready for fnal hearing of the application.

(3.) The matter was listed for hearing on 20th August 2021 and interim protection was granted to the Applicant. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on 27th August 2021, 17th September 2021, 24th September 2021 and 08th October, 2021, but since 18th October, 2021 onwards the interim order was not extended by the Court. It can not be said that due to oversight, interim order was not extended by this Court on 25th October 2021 or thereafter. It also appears that the Counsel for the Applicant must have prayed for extension of interim order, but this Court has kept the matter for hearing and not extended the interim order. Thus, it is clear from the record that the interim order was continued till 18th October 2021.