jpc appp350-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.350 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 203 OF 2011 Neha Varun Gupta ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. Laxman P.Kanal,for the applicant Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State Mr. P. N. Kamat i/by Mr. Milind B. Nair, for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 29th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Kanal, the learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Kamat, the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant had filed an application ( Criminal Application 203 of 2010) for cancellation of the anticipatory bail, that was granted to the respondent Nos.2,3&4 by the learned Sessions Judge. That application was listed for hearing on 23rd June, 2011, when the applicant and her advocate were absent. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, jpc appp350-11.sxw 2 the matter came to be decided by the Court and the application was rejected. 3. Now, by the present application, the applicant wants that the Criminal Application No. 203 of 2011 be re-heard. 4. Mr. Kamat, the learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, contends that the present application is not maintainable. He submits that Criminal Application No. 203 of 2011 came to be decided after considering the merits of the matter, though without hearing the applicant and her advocate. There is some substance in the contention advanced by Mr. Kamat, in as much as, prayer clause (a) to the present application speaks for 'restoration' of Criminal Application No. 203/2011, which may not be appropriate. However, that would be a technical aspect of the matter and the question would be, whether the order passed without hearing, can be recalled by this Court. 5. According to Mr. Kamat, such course is not open. However, in the view, that I am taking, it is not necessary to go into that question and examine, whether, this Court would be empowered, in law, to recall and rehear the Criminal Application No. 203 of 2011, by giving an jpc appp350-11.sxw 3 opportunity to the applicant to make oral submissions in support thereof. 6. The bail order was passed on 2nd December, 2010. Charge sheet has been filed in the matter on 6th April, 2011. It would be unreasonable to stipulate and also to expect that the respondents should be kept in custody till the trial would be over. 7. Mr. Kanal submits that when the matter was heard on 23rd July, 2011, a statement was made that the charge had already been framed, but that statement was not correct. According to him, the matter has now been adjourned to 12th March, 2012 by the learned Magistrate. If that is so, an appropriate direction needs to be given in the matter without going into the dispute raised. 8. The learned Magistrate is directed to place the matter on board on 12th September, 2011 (which date has been fixed by consent of the parties and after taking into consideration their convenience) for framing of the charge. 9. The Magistrate shall frame a charge against the respondents on that date and shall, thereafter, proceed with the trial expeditiously so as jpc appp350-11.sxw 4 to complete it within a period of one and half year from that date. 10. With this observation, the application is disposed of. 11. At this stage, Mr.Kamat points out that another application has been filed by the applicant for cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that in view of the present order, that application should be disposed of. Since that application is not before this Court, no order can be passed with respect of that application and the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 is entitled to make appropriate submission before that Court with respect to the said application. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)