1appp-376-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.376/2010 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2544 of 2009 Jamiu Adeoye vs. the State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr Ashish Baraskar i/by Avinash Baraskar, for the Applicant. Mr S.N.Gavade, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 29TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application preferred by the applicant for reduction of bail amount from Rs.1 lac to Rs.25,000/-. 2. Present applicant was granted bail by this Court (Coram :Shri A.P.deshpande,J) vide order dated 20th July, 2009 in Criminal Application No. 2544/2009. While granting bail considering the gravity of the offence against the present applicant and co-accused as to attempting to use bogus and fabricated credit cards and thereby indulging in siphoning of the amount from the Bank account of the other persons, rather heavy bail was imposed on the present applicant. He was directed to be released on furnishing bail of Rs.1 lac with one 2appp-376-10 surety for the like amount, or two sureties to make up the total amount of bail. Apparently, such bail amount was fixed considering the seriousness of the offence, applicant being the Nigerian citizen and his prospects for availability during the trial. Reportedly, another co-accused – a Nigerian citizen, had already complied the order by furnishing bail of Rs. 1 lakh. However, due to weak financial condition present applicant could not avail the bail. 3. Learned A.P.P.submitted that even the applicant could have arranged for sureties for Rs.50,000/- each but which has also not been done by him. He further submitted that the order granting bail had already given liberty to the applicant to produce two sureties or more sureties. 4. All the same, considering all circumstances, nature of offence and mainly the prospects of the case to be taken up for hearing, it would not be in the fitness of situation to reduce the amount of bail. Hence, the present application is disposed of with following order. ORDER: Application No.376/2010 is rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J)