1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 174 /2011 (Bhimrao Vasantrao Bhatkar vs. State of Maharashtra ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : 15th April, 2011. Heard Mr. Nitesh Samundre, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr S S Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.147 /2010 reported at Achalpur Police Station, Dist. Amravati for offence punishable under sections 484, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is facing accusation on the ground that he had prepared bogus office stamp in respect of office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur and misused the same, misrepresenting that they are true and genuine thus cheated the State Government as well as the general public. Considering the serious nature of accusations, the plea for bail has been objected on the ground that earlier plea for bail during the pendency of investigation was rejected. According to learned Advocate for the applicant, the applicant is suffering from tuberculosis and piles and is undergoing treatment and, therefore, he may be granted the benefit of bail while according to learned APP report from the District Civil 2 Surgeon Civil Hospital, Amravati was called; the copy of which is annexed with the reply, which indicate that necessary test and treatment is going on for the applicant at Civil Hospital, Amravati. That being so, on that ground, the applicant may claim exemption from personal appearance at the time of trial unless his presence is found absolutely essential for the progress of the trial. It is expected that the Medical authority concerned will take care for proper treatment and care of the applicant. It appears from the reply field by the State that charge was framed in the trial on 21.1.2011; the trial is in progress and Investigating Officer is yet to be examined; whereas the last date for hearing was fixed on 31.3.2011. That being so, we expect the learned trial Judge to conclude the hearing as early as possible in accordance with law in the pending criminal case against the present applicant. But, considering the serious nature of accusation, however, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail in favour of the applicant. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE sahare