1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4018 OF 2010 Mrs. A.L.Sumathi Palaniyanppan ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Murtaza M. Najmi a/w Ms Raseline Nadar i/by Shri P.R.Yadav, advs. For the Applicant. Ms P.P.Shinde, APP for the Respondent no.1/State. Ms Pravina Kanani , adv. for the R.No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : DECEMBER 6, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP as well as Ms Pravina Kanani, advocate for the original complainant. 2 Prosecution case in brief, is that Rajena Exports situated at Goregaon (West) in Bombay are in business of pulses and spices. One Abdulla M. Shaikh is General Manager of Rajena Exports. Shri Subrabhartha and Company situated at Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, placed an order for the supply of moongdal and toordal by E-Mail alongwith the purchase orders. They also sent two post dated cheques of ICICI Bank believing the same, Rajena Exports supplied pulses worth Rs. 35,53,901/-. Goods were received. After that some more order was 2 placed. Goods worth Rs.10,10,400/- were again supplied. However, they avoided making the payments. Cheques were dishonoured. 3 Second part of the complaint is that in June, 2009 present applicant, who is owner of Jeyam Masala situated at Coimbatore placed an order for Jeera worth Rs.23,46,240/- and she also sent post dated cheque by courier. On the basis of said order and the cheque, 16 tons of jeera was supplied by the complainant Rajena Exports. However, the payment was not received. In view of this, Abdulla, General Manager of the Rajena Exports lodged a report dated 10.2.2010 with Goregaon police station against Jeyam Masala and M/s. Subrabharatha. On the basis of said complaint, the present complainant was arrested on 16th March, 2010. 4 It appears that the original cheque issued by the accused was returned to her. She made a payment of about 5 lac and 9 more cheques were issued but those cheques were dishonoured. The payment of about Rs.18 lac plus has to be received. It is pointed out that initially during the investigation, bail was granted by the learned Magistrate but that order was later on set aside by this Court as the investigation was in progress. However, now investigation is completed, charge-sheet is also filed, therefore, the applicant seeks bail. As both the Courts below refused to 3 grant bail, she has come to this Court. 5 The applicant is woman and she is in jail for the last about 9 months, investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Case is triable by the Magistrate. However, there is no progress in the trial because owner and the manager of Shri Subrabharatha and Company are said to be absconding. In fact, there could not be common complaint or report against two different parties, who had allegedly cheated the complainant by totally independent and separate transactions. The learned counsel for the complainant, after taking instructions, made a statement that the present applicant has no concern with Shri Subrabharatha and Company nor the owner and the manager of Shri Subrabharatha and Company had any concern with Jeyam Masala owned by the present applicant. In view of this common charge-sheet for two different offences against two different companies could not have been filed. In view of the common charge-sheet for two different offences, prejudice is likely to be caused to accused persons and it is also likely to prolong the trial. Presently, case can not proceed because the owner and manager of Shri Subrabharatha and Company are absconding. In view of these circumstances, I find that present applicant, who is woman, deserves to be granted bail though with certain stringent 4 conditions, because she is allegedly involved in three different cases of the same nature, one in Punjab, one in Tamilnadu and one in Mumbai. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, the applicant be released on her executing PR of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent local sureties to make up that amount. However, as the applicant is from Tamilnadu, she shall be permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of surety for a period of four weeks within which time she shall furnish solvent surety. If she fails to furnish surety within specified time, she shall be taken in custody. In case surety is furnished by her, the cash deposited by her in lieu of the surety shall be refunded. She shall also furnish permanent address before the trial Court within four weeks. She shall not misuse the bail and shall attend the Coimbatore police station on every Sunday till pendency of the case before the trial Court. 7 In view of the facts noted above, the trial Court shall take steps to separate cases against M/s Subrabharathi and Company and the present applicant. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)