[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2388 OF 2008 Smt.Prabhavati Bhaviji Parkhi and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Gajendra Jadhav Advocate for Applicants Mr.H.J.Dedia APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 25, 2008 DATE : JULY 25, 2008 DATE : JULY 25, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in Regular Criminal Case No. 10 of 2003. The said case pertains to Deccan Gymkhana Police Station Pune. The prosecution case is that the applicants forged letter-head of the then Prime Minister Shri.Indrakumar Gujral and forged his signature. The C.B.I. has been prosecuting them in R.C.C. No.10 of 2003. In the said case, the applicants came to be granted bail. However, thereafter as [-2-] the applicants were not attending the Court regularly, non-bailable warrants were issued against them and ultimately they were taken into custody. Hence, the applicants are now seeking bail. 3. In the present case, the High Court had expedited the matter and directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. In order to conclude the trial the presence of the accused was necessary, however, the accused were not attending the court. They remained absent before the Court and period of six months expired. Lastly warrant was issued against them, however later bail was granted to them. 4. Thereafter again the accused remained absent, therefore, warrant was issued. The same could not be served. They were not traced, therefore, surety amount was forfeited and credited to the Government. The witness was always present on each date. The accused were not cooperating with the Court to commence the trial. 5. It is seen that when the matter was fixed for [-3-] hearing the accused for one or other reasons have played tactics to prolong the matter. The accused remained absent, therefore, lastly NBW was issued against them in order to secure their presence. The accused were released on bail on furnishing solvent surety. After furnishing surety they started to breach the conditions of the bond. Whenever, the witness remained present, the accused remained absent before the Court. Therefore, even though witness was present before the Court it was not possible to commence the evidence. Partly examination in chief was recorded in presence of the counsel of the accused. On the next date of hearing the learned counsel for the accused submitted no instructions pursis. As the accused remained absent before the Court, therefore, again warrant was issued against them. The said warrant was cancelled on 10.3.2008 with condition that the accused shall appear before the Court on date fixed. After the cancellation of NBW, again the accused have not followed the said condition and they remained absent before the Court. Thus, they committed breach of bond. Therefore, NBW was issued. The accused for one or other reason avoided to execute the warrant. Therefore, notice [-4-] to surety was issued. The surety did not produce the accused. Therefore, for the second time the surety amount was forfeited and credited to the Government. The accused were present before the Court for cancellation of NBW. The said application Exh.314 and 315 came to be rejected and the order of taking the accused in custody was passed on 3.4.2008. As soon as the order was passed, the accused left the premises of the Court. Thereafter, the applicants came to be taken into custody. Looking to the conduct of the accused persons, as stated above, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. 4. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]