1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2988 OF 2009 Anil Manilal Kadakai : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra through General Branch (C.I.D.) : Respondent .... Mr.M.M.Vashi i/b. M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.K.V.Saste, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MAY 07 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor waives service for the State. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 9.1.2009 thereby issuing bailable warrant against the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that in spite of the order passed by the apex Court dated 18.11.2005, a bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner which is not sustainable in law. 3. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State submits that 2 the charge-sheet in the present matter has been filed on 30.6.2005 i.e. prior to the order passed by the apex Court and since in pursuance of filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court, bailable warrant was issued. 4. The apex Court vide order dated 18.11.2005 has granted stay to all prosecutions launched under the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. It has specifically been observed by laying down the condition as under:- “But there shall not be further prosecutions of the accused persons and as regards pending cases the status quo as on today shall be maintained.” In view of the order passed by the apex Court, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have maintained status quo of the proceedings. No proceedings, in my view, could have proceeded further until further orders are passed by the apex Court. In my considered view, therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge issuing bailable warrant itself was not tenable. In that view of the mater, further order directing to surrender the passport and asking him to furnish cash surety would not be tenable. 3 5. In that view of the matter, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). However, in order to secure the interest of justice, it is directed that the petitioner shall execute a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) before the learned trial Court to the effect that in the event the presence of the petitioner is found necessary for the purpose of trial, after the matters are disposed of by the apex Court, the petitioner shall make himself available for trial. B. R. GAVAI, J.