SSK/912 1 apl.1062,1063 n 1076.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1062 OF 2011 Ramakrishnan Ranganathan ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharshtra & Anr. ...Respondents with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1063 OF 2011 Mukesh Agarwal ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharshtra & Anr. ...Respondents with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1076 OF 2011 Tapan A Vaidya ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharshtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Murtuza Najmi i/b. Mr. J. S. Saluja, advocate for the applicant in all the applications. Mr. D. P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 14th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Najmi, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Adsule, learned App for the State. None appears for respondent no.2, despite service. 2. The above three applications are filed by accused nos. 3, 5 & 8 respectively in ten complaints filed by respondent no.2. These complaints are filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable SSK/912 2 apl.1062,1063 n 1076.11 Instruments Act and pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court at Bandra. Accused Nos. 3 & 8 who are the applicants in Writ Petition Nos. 1062 and 1076 of 2011 are NRIs and accused no.5 is an Indian Citizen. 3. By Order dated 8th September, 2011, learned Metropolitan Magistrate released accused nos. 3, 5 & 8 viz. applicants in the above stated criminal applications on bail, on their executing PR bonds and surety bonds of Rs.20,000/- each. On the very same day, the advocates of these applicants filed an application for release of these accused on PR bond along with deposit of cash security. On the said application, learned Magistrate directed release of accused nos. 3, 5 & 8 on PR bonds of Rs.20,000/- each and time was granted till next date for compliance of the above order viz. Surety bond for an amount of Rs.20,000/- each. The present applicants are aggrieved by the latter part of the order. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that accused nos. 3, 5 & 8 are ready to give cash security instead of physical surety. He further submits that since the nature of the offence is economic, cash security may be accepted. 4. The cases filed by respondent no.2 are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and therefore, offences are economic. There are ten cases filed against each of the accused. The accused have SSK/912 3 apl.1062,1063 n 1076.11 executed personal bond. Instead of directing the accused to execute surety in the amount of Rs.20,000/-, they can be directed to give cash security. 5. Taking overall circumstances into consideration, I am satisfied that the applications deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Learned Magistrate, accordingly, is directed to accept from each of the applicants, cash security of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of executing surety bond for all the complaints viz. (i) CC No.1244/SS/2010, (ii) CC No. 1243/SS/2010, (iii) CC No.1240/SS/2010, (iv) CC No.131/SS/2010, (v) CC No.5619/SS/2009, (vi) CC No.5620/SS/2009, (vii) CC No. 5982/SS/2009, (viii) CC No.1242/SS/2010, (ix) CC No.1241/SS/2010 and (x) CC No.1239/SS/2010. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. 6. In the light of the above order, the criminal applications are disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)