1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1231 OF 2011 Smt.Pushpa L. Panjwani Applicant versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai. Respondents Mr.S.V.Marvadi, advocate for applicant. Mr.Mandar Goswami, advocate for CBI, respondent no.1. Mr.D.P.Adsule, APP for State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 PC : 1. Heard Mr.Marwadi for applicant and Mr.Goswami for CBI.. By this criminal application the applicant who is original accused no.7, challenges the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 3rd November 2011 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, ACB, Greater Mumbai. By the said order, the applicant's application at Exhibit-69 was rejected and cash surety of Rs.25,000/- came to be forfeited and non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant. 2. Earlier, the applicant was released on bail by order dated 3rd October 2011 on condition of furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount and was directed to complete the formalities of surety on or before 3rd November 2011. On 3rd November 2011 the advocate appearing for the applicant in Special Case No.73 of 2009 requested the Court to take up the matter and sought extension of time for furnishing the surety and for continuation of the cash surety deposited by her. As stated earlier, this application came to be rejected. 2 3. There is no dispute that the applicant is 80 years old lady. The report of the CBI annexed at page-11 shows that the applicant is not in a position to move due to her old age. In view thereof, the applicant is not able to carry out her day to day activities and is lying on bed. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant's application could not have been rejected and the amount of cash surety could also not have been forfeited. Therefore, the impugned is not sustainable. The revision application accordingly stands disposed of by passing following order : (a) The impugned order dated 3rd November 2011 passed on Exhibit-69 in Special Case No.73 of 2009 is quashed and set aside; (b) The applicant shall, on or before 22nd February 2012, furnish the surety and in the mean time the cash surety provided by the applicant of Rs.25,000/- shall stand continued; (c) As and when the applicant is able to move and undertake journey from Indore to Mumbai, she will attend the proceedings of the Special Court. (RANJIT MORE, J.)