- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2470 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.2470 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.2470 OF 2008 Shanti Lal P. Mehta ...Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.V.S.Thakur for the applicant Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : SEPTEMBER 26,2008 : SEPTEMBER 26,2008 : SEPTEMBER 26,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P for State. The learned A.P.P for State has produced a valuation certificate dated 19th September 2008 of a Government approved valuer in terms of the order dated 12th August 2008 passed by this court. The said valuation certificate is placed on record along with an affidavit of one Mr.Sunil Ghosalkar, Inspector of Police, D.C.P. C.I.D. 2. An application made by the applicant under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 was allowed by order dated 20th June 2008. The only grievance of the applicant is as regards the condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of executing a Suprutnama bond of Rs.25,00,000/- with solvent surety or bank guarantee of like amount. The contention of the applicant is that the market value of the ornaments of which the custody was granted to the applicant was not more than Rs.79,000/- - 2 - 3. Now, the valuation certificate of the Government approved valuer has been produced which discloses that the value of the ornaments and articles is Rs.2,12,000/-. The learned A.P.P submits that considering the fact that the trial will take a long time, a bond in the amount which is double the value of the articles should be taken. 4. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the condition incorporated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs to be modified by directing the Applicant to execute the Suprutnama bond of Rs.4,50,000/- with solvent surety of Rs.4,50,000/- or bank guarantee of the like amount. 5. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 20th June 2008 is modified. The condition incorporated in clause (i) of paragraph 2 of the operative part of the impugned order will now reads thus: . "That the applicant shall execute a Suprutnama bond in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- with a solvent surety of Rs.4,50,000/- or a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/-." ii) It is made clear that all other conditions incorporated in the said order are confirmed. iii) Parties and the concerned court to act upon an - 3 - authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE