1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1872 OF 2010 Shaikh Nawaz S/o.Ahmed Saheb, Age-32 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Narsi, Tq.Naigaon, Dist. Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Osmannagar RESPONDENT Mr.H.I.Pathan, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned APP for respondent State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 07/06/2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Issue notice to respondent. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent State. 2. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail, as his bail was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar by way of order dated 06/04/2010. As he was absent in Spl.Case No.61/2006, NBW was issued against him and when application was moved for cancellation of NBW, that application was rejected, his bail was cancelled and he 2 was taken in custody. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned APP for State. 4. It appears that on 13/04/2010, application was moved, on which order came to be passed, "put up for order after framing of charge" On 19/04/2010, the application was rejected as no specific reason of absence on the previous date is mentioned. Alongwith this application, the applicant has produced copy of the Roznama in Spl. Case No.61/2006. On clear perusal of the Roznama, it shows that already the witness summons were issued and the Spl.Case No. 61/2006 was listed for evidence of the witnesses on 03/03/2010. It appears that on 06/04/2010, when the matter was on the board, the present applicant was absent, hence his advocate on record, moved an application for cancellation of NBW issued against him on the earlier occasion, which was rejected. Similarly, the application moved by accused no.6 was also rejected on the same ground and in the order, it is mentioned that, "put up for order after framing of charge". This order appeared to be passed by the learned Special Judge, who has already framed the charge, as unless the charge is framed, no witness summons to be issued for recording the evidence of the witnesses, but inspite of this, it appears that without reading his own roznama, learned Special Judge has rejected the application, which is clear abuse of process of law. It is a fact that the special case is old one and might have delayed because of absence of applicant on one occasion, but for that purpose, it is not necessary to cancel his 3 bail. 5. In the premise, application is allowed on the following terms. O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant Shaikh Nawaj in Spl.Case No.61/2006 be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, the applicant to attend the hearing of Special Case No.61/2006 on all the adjourned dates without any excuse. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JUNE 2010/cri.appl.1872-10