IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2745 OF 2009 Sujeet Raghunath Shetty ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent --- Ms. Anjali Patil for Applicant Smt. S.D. Shinde, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Learned APP has filed affidavit of Sunil Pandurang Kadam, the Police Sub-Inspector attached to the Chembur Police Station. 3. This is a second application for bail filed by the Applicant. His first application was rejected by this Court by Order dated 18th February, 2009 in Criminal Application No.655 of 2009. The said application was rejected on merits. The present Applicant was arrested on 22nd April, 2009 in connection with an offence punishable under section 467, 468, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that there are as many as 52 cases, in which the Applicant has defrauded number of banks. This however, is not admitted by the Applicant. This Court, however, was given liberty to the Applicant to apply for bail after six months if the trial is not over within the said period. 4. Pursuant to the said liberty, which was granted by this Court, second application for bail is filed. It is submitted that since 2007 no other witness has been examined by the prosecution and no progress is made in the trial. It is submitted that the Applicant is in jail since 5 years. It is further submitted that one of the co- accused has been released on bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the Applicant also deserves to be released on bail. It is submitted that only six cases are filed against the present Applicant and the contention of the State that the Applicant is involved in 52 cases is not correct. The State has filed an affidavit in reply, in which it is stated that on an earlier occasion when the Applicant was released on bail, he was not available at the time of framing of the charge in the Sessions Court, Severi, Mumbai and he was absconding for sometime. It is submitted that the Applicant is not permanent resident of Mumbai and he is likely to abscond. This averment is also disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. She submitted that the Applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai and she is willing to produce a ration card to prove the said fact. The Learned APP for the State further pointed out that affidavit which is filed by the State, it is mentioned that three other accused are absconding and till date their whereabouts are not known. It is submitted that distress warrant against surety of one of the accused has been issued and, therefore, the trial could not proceed further. This again disputed by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. 5. Under these circumstances, in my view, there is no change in the circumstance since earlier application was rejected on merits. No case is, therefore, made out for grant of bail. The Trial Court, however, is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from today. Already six witnesses have been examined and another 18 witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution. In view of this, application for bail is rejected. Liberty, however, granted to the Applicant to apply for bail if the trial is not over within six months. 7. Application is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.