{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.195 OF 2007 Shabbir @ Tamijoddin Makarani Age-49 years, Occ-Labour R/o Makarani Phali, Akkalkuwa Tq-Akkalkuwa, Dist-Nandurbar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.R.S.Shinde h/f Mr.A.G.Magare, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant in criminal revision application No.195/2007, who has surrendered before the Sessions Court, Shahada, has approached this Court for his release on bail. 2. It is not disputed that the applicant was convicted in by the JMFC< Taloda SCC No.381/1993 vide judgment and order {2} dated and the said order is confirmed in criminal appeal No. 9/2005. After the revision came to be filed, challenging the order passed in criminal appeal No.9/2005, as the applicant had not surrendered his application was not considered, however directions were given on 16.04.2009 that the question of suspension of the substantial sentence would be considered after the applicant would surrender. As the applicant did not surrender, a Non Bailable Warrant was issued against him. 3. It is contended on behalf the applicant that as the applicant is a driver on an All India Permit vehicle, he requires to travel all over the India and due to this typical nature of his profession, the learned counsel for the applicant could not contact the applicant and hence there was no communication directing the applicant to appear before the court of law and hence he did not, at earlier point of time, surrender. In the premise it is urged that, the mistake, though committed by the applicant, is not deliberate or intentional, but the same is inadvertent. 4. It is urged that through out the trial and even during the pendency of the appeal, the applicant was on bail and the applicant is also ready to give an undertaking that he would appear before the concerned police station whenever required. Generally, in such circumstances, Court must be strict, however, considering the peculiar circumstances in which the applicant failed to appear or surrender before the court of law, some leniency {3} requires to be shown to him. 5. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on the same terms and conditions on which he was released on bail by the trial court, however on furnishing fresh surety and on executing fresh PR bond with an undertaking to the effect that he would appear before the Court of law whenever required. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln92-10 {4} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.195 OF 2007 Shabbir @ Tamijoddin Makarani Age-49 years, Occ-Labour R/o Makarani Phali, Akkalkuwa Tq-Akkalkuwa, Dist-Nandurbar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.R.S.Shinde h/f Mr.A.G.Magare, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Considering the observations of learned Ad Hoc District Judge-2 Shahada, in para 2 of his order, where some legal provision in respect of section 260 of the Criminal Procedure Code is discussed, Rule. Rule made returnable early. Call for R & P. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln92-10