IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL. APPLICATION NO. 696/2009 (Asif Khan Riyaz Khan ..vs.. State ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 9th APRIL, 2009 Heard Shri Mardikar, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Thakare, APP, for respondent State. This is an application under Section 439 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is facing trial for the offence under Sections 395, 421, 413, 414 of I.P.C. arising out of Crime No. 7/2005 of Police Station Patur. The applicant was released on bail, however, he remained absent and therefore, he was brought on production warrant as he was noticed to be in other jail. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the application of the permission to furnish surety by the applicant reads thus-- “No substance in application. Accused being absent, warrant was issued against him with notice to the surety. Surety sought time to produce and subsequently submitted that he is in jail. Thus, presence was secured by production warrant. Even surety withdrawn his bond. Thus, accused taken in judicial custody in this case. When accused jumped bail, he can not claim bail as of right unless there is reasonable grounds to the satisfaction that his absence was intentional. Because of absence of the applicant/accused, trial is protracted. Hence, application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly application stands rejected. It appears that the surety had withdrawn his bond and therefore, the accused was taken in judicial custody. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the bail of the applicant was not cancelled. When this matter was hear, learned APP filed some documents on record to show that the applicant had few offences at his credit, which were registered at P.S. Obedullah Ganj, Distt. Raisen (M.P.) . The offence are under Section307 of the I.P.C. besides other offences. As regards first case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been acquitted by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal NO. 949/2007. As regards other cases, learned APP has submitted that this offence the applicant had committed after he was released on bail in the instant case and therefore, the bail of the applicant is liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, wherein the applicant was released on bail for this offence. In such state of affairs, the applicant would be entitled for continuation of bail. However, in the circumstances of the case, the said continuation shall be subject to production of surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge and further condition that the applicant shall attend the trial regularly and shall not commit any offence in future. Application disposed of. Bail in lower court. Hamdast granted. JUDGE Rvjalit