IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3683 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3683 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3683 OF 2008 Shri Bharatkumar Vrajlal Jogi. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Vikas Shivarkar with Yogesh Dandekar for the applicant. H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 15th January 2009. DATED: 15th January 2009. DATED: 15th January 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant has applied for bail on second occasion after having suffered rejection of his earlier bail application by order dated 6th May, 2008. The applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.96/2002 registered with EOW, GB, CB, CID, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) read with section 3 and 4 of M.P.I.D. Act, 1999. 3. The police have received 94 complaints against the applicant and his family members of having committed economic offence involving Rs.91,76,688/-. The applicant was absconding for a period of six years. He was arrested on 16th April, 2008 in the present C.R. and, subsequently, chargesheet was filed against him before the trial Court. The applicant- accused tried to keep himself away from investigation for a period of six years. He was required to be declared as absconding. Proclamation was required to be issued against him. His properties were required to be seized. Looking to the conduct of the applicant- accused, the possibility of his jumping the bail cannot be ruled out. As such, in my considered view, the applicant is not entitled to bail. 4. So far as reliance placed on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10th November, 2005 passed in Special Leave Petition Nos.406-409/2004 is concerned, the same is misplaced since the facts of the case in hand and the facts involved in the Supreme Court order are quite different. In the subject order, the bail was granted to those persons who were before the Apex Court challenging the provisions of the M.P.I.D.Act. In this case, the accused is not only charged for having committed offence under sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D.Act but he is also - 3 - charged with sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of I.P.C. The applicant’s case cannot be considered at par with those persons who were before the Supreme Court. Apart from this, the applicant was absconding for a period of six years. Again if chance is given to jump the bail, the possibility of trial getting protracted cannot be ruled out. 5. In the result, bail application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE