[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION APPLICATION APPLICATION NO. 618 OF 2007 NO. 618 OF 2007 NO. 618 OF 2007 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... APPLICANT. VS. GLEN ISSAC PETER @ MICHAEL ... RESPONDENT. MRS. SHINDE APP FOR THE APPLICANT-STATE. RESPONDENT PRESENT IN PERSON. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND AND AND SRI SRI SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ. A.A.SAYED, JJ. A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2007. : DECEMBER 12, 2007. : DECEMBER 12, 2007. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the applicant- State and the respondent who is present in person. 2. This is an application for condonation eleven days delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order of granting bail, passed by the Special judge under M.C.O.C. Act in Special Case No. 4 of 2006. 3. The Respondent who is present in person prays for adjournment on the ground that he wants to engage advocate, however, considering the matter in issue, we do not find it worth to adjourn the matter. Suffice it to observe that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, sufficient case is made out to condone the delay of eleven days in filing the appeal against the [2] impugned order. The delay is therefore condoned and the application stands disposed of accordingly. [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J] [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J] [R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J] [A.A.SAYED, [A.A.SAYED, [A.A.SAYED, J.] J.] J.] [3] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2007 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... APPLICANT. VS. GLEN ISSAC PETER @ MICHAEL ... RESPONDENT. MRS. SHINDE APP FOR THE APPLICANT-STATE. RESPONDENT PRESENT IN PERSON. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR AND AND AND SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ. SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ. SRI A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2007. : DECEMBER 12, 2007. : DECEMBER 12, 2007. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the appellant- State and the respondent, who is present in person prays for time to adjourn the matter. We find no reason to adjourn the matter. 2. The appellant herein challenges the impugned order of grant of bail to the respondent. The Trial Judge, after considering the materials on record and particularly, the confessional statement on which reliance was sought to be placed before the Trial Court in support of the contention that no bail should be granted to the respondent, granted bail to the respondent. We find that the Trial Court on proper [4] analysis of all the materials arrived at a correct finding for grant of bail to the applicant (the respondent herein) and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal stands rejected. ..... [R.M.S.KHANDEPAKAR, [R.M.S.KHANDEPAKAR, [R.M.S.KHANDEPAKAR, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.SAYED, [A.A.SAYED, [A.A.SAYED, J.] J.] J.]