1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 2122 OF 2009 Ravindra Bhagwat Jawale Versus The State of Maharashtra. *** Mr. Ajay Dinode, Advocate i/b Mr. G. K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused/ applicant extensively. The accused is in custody from 10th October, 2007. His earlier bail pleas have been turned down even by this Court. The only grievance that has been now canvassed by the counsel is owing to absence of some of the accused the matter is not taken up even for framing charge. Since the accused has virtually undergone imprisonment for nearly three years, it is high time that he should be released on bail. The counsel, in order to support his contention, has placed reliance to the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of "Nimeon Sangma and others V/s Home Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya and others" reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 1518. It was a matter in the nature of public interest seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus in view of alleged illegal detention of large number of persons under guise of judicial 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. process. The Lordships having seen the record, directed the State authorities to comply requisitions including furnishing report and guidelines were given. 2. Counsel then invited my attention to the judgment of "Kishore Shankar Signapurkar V/s State of Maharashtra" reported in 1997 II LJ 14 in which the brother Judge has observed in paragraph 4 that the Petitioner in the said case cannot be kept indefinitely in custody. It was a matter wherein an ill advertised shoe scam has taken place. Several persons were involved in cheating Government and forming fake and bogus societies which were registered in fictitious persons as members. Since the investigation could not be completed to its logical end, these observations came to be passed by the brother Judge. 3. Counsel relied to the judgment of Division Bench in the matter of "State of Maharashtra V/s Laljit Tejshi Shah and others" reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 452. It was a matter relating to the affairs of cooperative societies and definition of a public servant in terms of section 161 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 4. The counsel would submit that absence of few 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. of the accused has resulted in issuance of non- bailable warrant and it is time consuming. However, the Roznama produced by him, being confined to 3rd July, 2009, it is difficult to digest what could be the further progress in the matter. 5. The fact remains that the accused/ applicant is in custody from 10th October, 2007. Allegations, prima facie, are of serious nature inviting large scale embezzlement of bank funds in the personal name and including in the wife's name for business facility was obtained without complying the requisite formalities. The approach of the accused/ applicant in the capacity as Chairman smacks arrogance. In the situation, the bail, as one more chance, cannot be entertained. However, if the trial fails to commence and if there is no progress in the matter, the applicant is at liberty to move this court after three months. Application is disposed of. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:24/08/2009. ans/2122