IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 538 OF 2009 Vishwanath Gangaram Mistry ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri S.V. Marwadi i/b. Shri Vaibhav & Associates Shri S.S. Pednekar, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 10TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for State. 2. The Applicant has filed this application seeking two reliefs, firstly, it is prayed that the non-bailable warrant issued by the Sessions Court be set aside and the application is to be allowed on the same bail bond and, secondly, seeking transfer of the case from the 19th Sessions Court, Mumbai to any other Sessions Court at Mumbai. 3. It is submitted that the Applicant is an original Accused No.2 and had been duly and diligently attending the trial before the Sessions Court for four years. However, on one date, he could not remain present on account of his ill-health and the learned Sessions Court, therefore, was pleased to pass an order for cancellation of bail, which was granted to the Applicant. It is submitted that the trial may be transfer from 19th Sessions Court, Mumbai to any other Sessions Court. 4. So far as, the first relief claimed by the Applicant is concerned, taking into consideration the Roznama, it does appear that the Applicant had remained present regularly before the Sessions Court and only on one date, he remained absent on account of his medical problem. The Sessions Court, under these circumstances, ought not to have cancelled the bail granted to the Applicant. The order of cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court is, therefore, set aside. The non-bailable warrant is also quashed and set aside. 6. The second relief claimed by the Applicant on the ground that the trial may be transferred to any other Court would not be accepted. While satisfying the absence of the Applicant, the Trial Court has passed the judicial order against which the Applicant has remedy to approach the higher court and that by itself cannot be a ground for seeking transfer of the case and, therefore, the application for transfer is rejected. 7. Application is, accordingly, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 8. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.