1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2643 OF 2009 Ramesh Moraji Shah Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Yogesh Israni for the applicant. H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC :- 1. Not on board. Taken on board. 2. The offences alleged against the applicant are under section 4- A and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887. It is not in dispute that the offences alleged against the applicant are bailable offences. 3. On application for bail made by the applicant, the learned Magistrate on 4th June 2009 granted bail on executing S.B. and P.B. of Rs.50,000/-. The learned Judge observed that the applicant will 2 not be entitled to cash bail. On the same day another application was made for cash bail. Though the said application was rejected, the learned Magistrate directed that the applicant to be released on cash bail of Rs.50,000/- subject to proof of residence and on condition of attendance. He was directed to furnish surety on 17th June 2009. The counsel for the applicant states that the said time granted up to 17th June 2009 has been extended by a period of two weeks. He pointed out that the maximum punishment for the offences alleged is imprisonment up to two years or fine or both. He pointed out that all other accused in the same case were enlarged on cash bail of Rs. 1,000/-. He, therefore, submitted that the bail amount fixed in the sum of Rs.50,000/- is unjust and unfair which virtually may have effect of denying the bail in case of bailable offence. Learned APP submitted that as the applicant is the main accused in the case, the bail amount has been rightly fixed by the Magistrate. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The offence alleged against the applicant is admittedly bailable. All other accused have been admittedly released on cash bail of Rs.1,000/-. Now the applicant has furnished cash bail of Rs.50,000/- and within the stipulated time he has been directed to furnish surety for the said amount. 3 5. Considering all the aforesaid aspects, the bail amount of Rs. 50,000/- fixed by the learned Judge is unjust and improper. Hence, the order passed by the learned Magistrate deserves modification. 6. Hence, I pass following order :- a) The applicant shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; b) As the applicant is already enlarged on cash bail of Rs. 50,000/-, time of four weeks from today is granted to furnish sureties; c) The criminal application is disposed of accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)