1 Criminal Application No.667/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2011 Rajiv Ramdas Mahajan & ors. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri D.B. Thoke, Advocate for the applicants Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for respondents, assisted by Shri U.S. Patil, Advocate for original complainant ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th February, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. On 8.12.2010, while entertaining application in terms of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Crime No. 227/2010, brother Judge (V.R. Kingaonkar, J.) recorded following order : “I. In the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) each before the Arresting Officer. II. The applicants shall give an undertaking to the effect that they will repay the entire loan amount outstanding against the account in the Vijaya Bank, Jalgaon against the name and property of the complainant in order to get the property released in his name within eight weeks. If they will fail to get the property released and restored in name of the 2 Criminal Application No.667/2011 complainant within eight weeks, then the Application to be deemed as dismissed and the Investigation Officer may be at liberty to arrest them. The undertaking to be given before the Registrar (Judicial) today itself.” 2. By an application moved today, following prayers are made by the accused/ applicants : (A) Allow this Criminal Application. (B) Be please to extend the period of protection granted in their favour by virtue of order passed by this Hon’ble High Court dt. 8/12/2010 in respect of crime registered against them at MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon vide CR No.227/2010, for a period of further 8 weeks.” (C) Any other equitable relief may kindly be granted in favour of applicants.” 3. Thus, without further dissecting the matter to its merits, it is explicit that, clause (II) of the above order of furnishing undertaking on the very day dated 8/12/2010 is not scrupulously adhered to. Perusal of the application, there is no whisper as to what made the applicants not to furnish such undertaking. Such attempt of the applicants simply needs to be deprecated. No case to extend the time as sought in the application. Application dismissed. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri667.11