spb/- 1 22-10-2899-2937-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2899 OF 2010 Dhiren J. Saraiya ... Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Kunal Impex & Anr. ... Respondents. --- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2937 OF 2010 Veena D. Saraiya ... Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Kunal Impex & Anr. ... Respondents. --- Mr. S.M. Bandkar for the Petitioners in both the petitions. Mr. Q.M.Ashfaq for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 22nd OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the learned APP for the State in both the petitions. 2 The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court, directing them to deposit an amount of Rs.One lakh as a condition spb/- 2 22-10-2899-2937-10.sxw for grant of bail. 3 A complaint was filed by the Respondent-Complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against both the petitioners separately. The trial court convicted the petitioners for the said offence and sentenced them to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay fine. So far as petitioner - Shri Dhiren J. Saraiya is concerned, he was directed to pay fine of Rs. 2.53 lakhs and so far as other petitioner- Mrs. Veena Dhiren Saraiya is concerned, she was directed to pay fine of Rs. 2.04 lakhs. Against this order, both the petitioners preferred appeal in the sessions court. While granting bail, the Sessions Court was pleased to imposed some conditions. 4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not in a position to pay the said amounts. It is submitted that the petitioner -Dhiren Saraiya is a driver, earning Rs. 7000/- to 8000/- per month and, therefore, he would not be in a position to pay the said amount. Sofar Mrs. Veena D. Saraiya is concerned, she is a house wife of Mr. Dhiren Saraiya and, therefore, she is also not in a position to pay the said amount. spb/- 3 22-10-2899-2937-10.sxw 5 On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant-Kunal Impex submitted that the complaint has been filed against both the petitioners which is registered with the CID Economic Offence Wing, GBCB, Mumbai. He submits that in the said complaint there are allegations against the petitioners that they have acquired huge amounts from investors on making false representations and an amount of Rs. Twenty-seven crores was found transacted through their bank accounts. He has produced xerox copies of the list of the accounts of the petitioners prepared by the CID. 6 Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, in my view, the condition imposed by the Sessions Court for granting bail to the petitioners is not unreasonable, taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dilip Dhanukar vs. Kotak Mahindra (2007) 6 SCC 528). Hence, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the petitioners. 7 Hence, both the petitions are dismissed. [V.M. KANADE, J.]