ABDUL HAMEED ABDUL RASHID Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. ADMIT. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for both parties.

(2.) The Applicant has challenged the order dtd. 6/9/2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the interim protection has been refused in an application filed by the applicant for grant of pre-arreest bail in terms of Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has heavily criticized the order under challenge by stating that the Trial Court without considering the factual aspect, alleged role and a plea of alibi substantiated by documents has refused to exercise discretion in granting interim protection.

(3.) The non-applicant/State resisted application by contending that the Trial Court was right in refusing to grant protection since the applicant "™s name was mentioned in the First Information report and his overtact has been specified. Moreover, it is reiterated that the plea of alibi cannot be considered while deciding the pre-arrest bail application.