1 cri.applns2847 and 2943 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2847 OF 2010 Shri Waryam Singh ...Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Sachin Patil i/b. Mr.Manoj Patil for the Applicant. Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr.Sujit B. Shelar for Respondent No.2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2943 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Hemant Krushna Waradkar ...Respondent Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the Applicant-State. Mr.Sujit B. Shelar for the Respondent.. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. :- 1 The respondent-accused Hemant Krushna Waradkar was granted bail by the learned Additional 2 cri.applns2847 and 2943 of 2010 CMM, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, by the impugned order dated 12th March, 2010 in CR No.11/2009 of EOW, CID, Unit-II, Mumbai, (former Crime No.92/2009 registered with Santacruz Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 511 read with 34 of the IPC. Both these applications are filed for cancellation of the said bail. Application No.2847/2010 is filed by the original complainant who is a Director of Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd. company while Criminal Application No.2943/2010 is filed by the State. 2 At the outset, it may be stated that the learned Counsel for the complainant/applicant in Criminal Application No.2847/2010 does not want to press the application and seeks to withdraw it and therefore, it may be disposed of as withdrawn. 3 The learned APP contends that the bail application is filed mainly on the ground that the 3 cri.applns2847 and 2943 of 2010 offences are punishable with life imprisonment and therefore, bail could not be granted by the Magistrate or Additional CMM. However, the learned APP fairly conceded that this Court has in Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere vs. State of Maharashtra 2010 ALL MR (Criminal) 2775 clearly held that even though the offences under Sections 409, 467 are punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years, still the Magistrate has power to grant bail to the accused as both these offences are triable by the Magistrate. It was also held that the restriction under Section 437(1) against the grant of bail by the Magistrate is in respect of those offences which are punishable with alternative sentence of death or life imprisonment. Same view was taken by this Court (Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.) in the case of Mr.Ishan Vasant Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 18th October, 2010 after referring to the judgment in the case of Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere (supra) and other judgments of the Supreme Court. 4 cri.applns2847 and 2943 of 2010 4 On perusal of facts, I find that it was a fit case to grant bail because the whole case is based on the different documents executed from time to time. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the bail granted by the trial court. 5 Therefore, while Criminal Application No. 2847/2010 stands disposed of as withdrawn, Criminal Application No.2943/2010 stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)