14.crwp-2366-11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITOIN NO. 2366 OF 2011 C.K.Narayan ..Petitioner Vs. T.A.N. Moorthy and Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha i/b Dinesh Tiwari and Associates for Petitioner Mr. Kishor Bhatia for respondent no.1 Mr. A.S.Shitole Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6th August, 2011 issuing non-bailable warrant against the appellant. 3. The learned Judge has not given any reason as to why it was felt necessary that the presence of the appellant was necessary at that stage of the hearing. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kanji R. Barot Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1 14.crwp-2366-11.doc 2008, has held that even the personal presence of the petitioner at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment, is not necessary. Unless the Judge found that for any purpose, the presence of the appellant was necessary, I find that the order of issuing non-bailable warrant, was not justified in the facts of the present case. 4. Rule is thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ B.R.GAVAI, J. ] 2