1 cri.appln 56-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2009 1.Sahebali Akas Ali Shakih, 2.Gulam Rabbani Akas Ali ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Applicants. Smt.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : MARCH 30, 2011 P.C :- 1 Heard. Perused the application and the judgment and Order. 2 The impugned judgment and order dated 23 rd September, 2009 passed in Sessions Case No.947/2007 by the Additional Sessions Court, Mumbai, reveals 2 cri.appln 56-2011 that the applicant-accused and the co-accused who have been released on bail have been convicted and sentenced as under :- The applicants-accused no.2 Sahebali Akas Ali Shaikh and no.3 Gulam Rabbani Akas Ali Shaikh convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489(c) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further SI for one month by each of them. The co-accused who have been released on bail - accused no.4 Mohd. Iqbal Awliar Rehman Shaikh, accused no.5 Mohd.Jamal Husain Ali Ahmed Shaikh and accused no.9 Pyari Begum Jamal Mulla convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489(c) IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further SI for one month by each of them. 3 Learned Advocate Mr.Vagal for the 3 cri.appln 56-2011 applicants placed before the Court copies of the Orders dated 25 th February, 2010 in Criminal Application No.1213/2009, 28 th October, 2010 in Criminal Application No.1014/2010 and 19 th April, 2010 in Criminal Application No.202 of 2010 granting bail to the accused nos.4, 5 and 9, respectively and submitted that on parity, the applicants-accused deserve to be released on bail. According to him, the cases against the co-accused released on bail were grave in terms of the number of counterfeit notes recovered from them and all the accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6 of the Passport Rules, 1950 read with 3(1) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 read with 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946, and yet they were released on bail for the reason of having undergone substantial portion of the sentences. 4 The prosecution has resisted the grant of bail to the applicants-accused on the grounds :- 4 cri.appln 56-2011 i)that the applicants-accused are Bangladeshi nationals, ii)the offence for which they were convicted is grave inasmuch as it has deleterious effect on the national economy, iii)They are not permanent residents of India. 5 The applicants-accused and the co-accused who have been released on bail are undisputedly Bangladeshi nationals holding valid passports of Bangladesh. This fact as well as the fact of the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 489(c) was taken into consideration by this Court while granting bail to the co-accused. It appears that decision to grant bail was actuated by the fact that the applicant had undergone more than 50% of the sentence. Same is the case with the present accused. The orders granting bail to the co-accused 5 cri.appln 56-2011 have not been challenged and it appears that State is complacent regarding the grant of bail to the co- accused. Hence, the Order. 6 The applicants-accused shall be released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.5000/- each with one or two sureties, one of them a local surety, in the like amount subject to the following conditions :- i)Shall keep the police informed of their whereabouts from time to time, ii)shall not leave Mumbai without the permission of this Court, iii)shall attend Dongri Police Station, Mumbai, once in a month till the disposal of the appeal, iv)shall keep their passports deposited with the police, 6 cri.appln 56-2011 v)shall deposit the fine amount with the trial court. 7 Application stands disposed of, accordingly. (U.D. SALVI, J.)