SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ
SURAJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incarceration duration calls for bail. (Para 3) |
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3.The appellant has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No.236/2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 20 , 406, 409, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477A, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , read with Sections 4 3 (b), 65, 66B, 66C, and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 , read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 .
Signature Not Verified 4. Admittedly, the appellant has been under Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2025.07.15
16:30:27 IST Reason: incarceration for more than one year. The chargesheet has also been filed. Thus, continued custody of the appellant is no longer required.
5. Considering the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is granted bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.
7. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………………
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.