VINOD @ VINAYAK BALASAHEB BARVE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

LSP 1 1 apl 783.25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No. 783 of 2025 Vinod @ Vinayak Bhalerao Barve … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents. Mr. Akshay Bankapur Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP for the State. Digitally CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J signed by LATA LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI DATE : 24th July 2025. PANJWANI Date: 2025.07.29 13:27:45 +0530 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned Advocate Shri Bankapur for the Applicant- under trial prisoner and the learned APP. 2. This is one of the example wherein even the District Judges who have acquired some experience deal with the issue improperly. Any Judge who is dealing with any issue is basically supposed to know what are the issues to be decided and what is the scope of enquiry to be conducted. If a Judge misses these issues and deal with the prayer, it results into undesired results. LSP 2 1 apl 783.25.doc 3. When the Applicant has prayed for direction to jail administration to produce the Applicant in the office of Sub- Registrar of Assurances, Nashik, the learned Judge decided the application as if he is dealing with a challenge to an action taken as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act and as if he is dealing with the prayer for temporary or interim bail. Why I am saying this because in an impugned order, the learned Judge in Para No.4 opined that “ not a single document is placed on record by the Applicant showing action being initiated by the SBI Bank as per the SARFAESI Act.” Nowhere the Applicant has challenged that action. 4. The learned Judge misses point that the loan document i.e. Certificate dated 17th April 2025 sanctioning the loan is produced just to show that the Applicant is desirous of selling a flat. Similarly,