1 WP 2510.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2510 OF 2011 Mr. Pradeep s/o. Prayagdas Saraogi. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. The Applicant claims to be a builder, his property was allegedly sold and the 3rd party applied for bank loan and it gave rise to prosecution under FIR No. 41 of 2004, punishable under Section 420, 465, 467,468,471,494 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. 3. Mr. Saraogi submits that the Accused/Applicant has no role in the entire transaction either in cheating the bank as the loan application was routed by one Dali and he has indeed carried such exercises with two or three other financial institutions also. The learned Counsel submits that at the most, the Accused/Applicant would be a witness in the transaction. He submits that Accused/Applicant has shifted 2 WP 2510.11.sxw his residence and the notices which were allegedly sent by the Court were sent at his old address hence he could not attend the Court and consequently, proclamation was issued. The learned Counsel submits, the Applicant, as duty bound would move the Court concerned for getting the non-bailable warrant terminated and also the proclamation in terms of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. thereof. However, he has urged for interim protection for atleast 15 days. 4. Normally, such exercise is not to be entertained. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case as the Accused/Applicant claims and as informed by the learned Counsel from the document, the notices are apparently sent on incorrect address, which has created a mayhem to the situation, warranting issuance of proclamation including non- bailable warrant. 5. In the above situation, non-bailable warrant issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai is stayed upto 18th October 2011. The Petition is allowed only to the extent as above. This Court has not opined on merits of claims and contentions of the Accused/Applicant in the matter. Petition disposed of. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)