Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. Bombay High Court/
  4. 2024/
  5. January

Arjun Sekhar vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Decided on 31 January 2024• Citation: IA/35/2024• Bombay High Court
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                                               949. IA 35-2024.doc  
            Anand                                                                   
                          IN THE HIGH COURT  OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY                
                               CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                    
                               INTERIM APPLICATION  NO. 35 OF 2024                  
                                               IN                                   
                                BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3120 OF 2023                   
                    Arjun Sekhar                                .Applicant          
                      Versus                                                        
                    The State of Maharashtra & anr.             .Respondents        
                    Mr.  Veerdhaval Deshmukh   a/w. Mr.  Akshay  Mishra  i/b.       
                    Hulyalkar & Associates, Advocate, for the Applicant             
                    Ms. Veera Shinde, APP, for Respondent No. 1 – State             
                    Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma i/b. Mr. Subir Kumar, Advocate, for     
                    Respondent No. 2                                                
                                   CORAM: MADHAV   J. JAMDAR, J.                    
                                   DATE:  31.01.2024                                
                    P. C.                                                           
                    1.        Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for     
                    the  Applicant, Ms.  Shinde, learned  APP  appearing  for       
                    Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for  
                    Respondent No. 2 – The Superintendent (Anti Evasion) CGST &     
                    C.EX., Raigad.                                                  
                    2.        The Applicant is already granted bail by a learned    
                    Single Judge (Coram  : M.  S. Karnik, J.) by order dated        
                    11.12.2023 passed in B. A. No. 3120 of 2023.                    
                                                1                                   

                                                               949. IA 35-2024.doc  
            Anand                                                                   
                    3.        The Applicant is seeking modifcation of Clauses (b),  
                    (c) and (d) of the aforesaid order. The said Clauses (b), (c) & (d)
                    of the aforesaid order read as under :-                         
                              “(b) The applicants Arjun Sekhar  and                 
                              Aditya Sekhar in connection with RCC No.              
                              513/2023   arising  out  of   Remand                  
                              Application in File No. F.NOV/P1/RGD/GR-              
                              1/ PASSION   PLAY/   30-258/ 2022-23                  
                              registered with Superintendent of CGST &              
                              C. Ex., Raigad Commissionerate, shall be              
                              released on bail on their furnishing P. R.            
                              bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with one or more            
                              local sureties in the like amount.                    
                              (c)  The  applicants are permitted to                 
                              furnish cash bail surety in the sum of                
                              Rs. 50,000/- each for a period of 4 weeks in          
                              lieu of surety.                                       
                              (d)  The applicants shall attend the CGST,            
                              Raigad once in a week on every Sunday of              
                              the month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00                 
                              p.m. till further orders of the trial Court.”         
                    4.        Insofar as Clause Nos. (b) and (c) are concerned, the 
                    Applicant is seeking six weeks more time  to furnish local      
                    sureties. However, as a last chance, four weeks time is granted to
                    the Applicant to furnish local sureties in terms of the aforesaid
                    Clause Nos. (b) and (c).                                        
                    5.        Insofar as Clause No. (d) regarding attendance is     
                                                2                                   

                                                               949. IA 35-2024.doc  
            Anand                                                                   
                    concerned,  Mr. Sharma,   learned counsel  appearing  for       
                    Respondent No. 2  states that the Respondent No. 2 has no       
                    objection, if the said condition is modifed to the effect that the
                    Applicant will attend the offce of Respondent No. 2 as and when 
                    required by Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the said condition is
                    modifed by directing that the Applicant will attend the offce of
                    Respondent No. 2 as and when required by Respondent No. 2.      
                    6.        Mr.  Sharma,   learned  counsel  appearing  for       
                    Respondent No. 2 further states that insofar as Clause No. (i) of
                    the said order surrendering of passport to the Investigating    
                    offcer is concerned, the Applicant has not complied with the said
                    condition. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the      
                    Applicant, on instructions, states that the aforesaid Clause No. (i)
                    will be complied with within a period of one week from today.   
                    7.        Accordingly, the Interim Application is disposed of in
                    above terms.                                                    
                                                     [MADHAV   J. JAMDAR, J.]       
                                                3