1 Cri.Appln.No.1150/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1150/2011 Ravindra s/o Bhagwat Jawale - APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.RS Shinde, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 18th April, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties finally. 2) The applicant has prayed for relaxation of the condition set out by order dated 13.12.2010 recorded in Criminal Application No. 4671/2010, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) up to 14th 2 Cri.Appln.No.1150/2011 March, 2011. 3) Mr.Shinde, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits the time of three months could not be exhausted by the accused/applicant, as all his properties were under charge of the Faizpur Cooperative Society and the applicant, in spite of his deligent and conscious efforts, could not get clearance from the Incharge of the society. Learned Counsel submits, to ensure, requisitions sought to issue clearance/no objection, are favourably showered, he has filed a writ petition wherein directions are awaited. 4) On re-visiting the facts of the present case and reading the order dated 13.12.2010, it is clear that trial in the matter could not commence well in time, as there were 13 accused/suspects, who enjoyed the bail and the matter was dragged. The applicant desired fruits of liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, since he was in custody 3 Cri.Appln.No.1150/2011 for more than three years. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to adhere time frame to dispose of the case, however, he could not do so, owing to calculated hindrances of accused. 5) The liability and siphoning of the funds of the bank against the applicant/accused runs in crores of rupees. However, considering the plight faced by him, the concessional order, as referred above, directing him to be released on bail of Rs.50,000/- and to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) within a scheduled time of three months, was passed. It was based on the submission of Mr.Shinde. However, accused failed to deposit and has frustrated effect of the order. 6) The liberty apparently is misused by the applicant/accused, claiming that he is hospitalized and making his presence scarce to the Investigator. Consequently, the Investigator 4 Cri.Appln.No.1150/2011 is unable to put fetters to the accused/applicant even after 14th March, 2011. Such conduct on the part of the accused/applicant is unconceivable, deprecated and warrants condemnation. 7) With all said and done, relaxation sought, lacks merit and also adds to the novel conduct of the applicant to reject the same. Criminal Application rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/