mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3569 OF 2007 Dawood Mehboob Mulla .. Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.Praveen L. Singh for the applicant. Mr.D.P. Adsule APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 8th January 2008 P.C.: 1. Applicant is being prosecuted for offence punishable under sections 279, 337, 337, 304A and 427 and sec.184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant was granted bail. However when the case came up for hearing on 27th July 2001, he was absent. The hearing therefore could not be proceeded with. Warrant was ordered to be issued against the applicant with notice to the sureties on 27th July 2001. The applicant thereafter appeared in the court on 18th March 2002 and got the warrant cancelled, but thereafter he continuously remained absent on all dates from April 2002 till 14th May 2007. In all, he remained absent for 19 dates. On account of the absence of the applicant, the case could not be heard. 2. During the period of six years between 2002 to 2007, several times notices were issued to the sureties and warrants of arrest were also issued against the applicant. However, the applicant was not found at the address given by him and the warrants could not be executed. After long lapse of six years, police were able to trace and arrest the applicant on 15th August 2007. Thereafter the applicant applied to the trial court for releasing him on bail. That application has been rejected by the court. 3. The learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application releasing the applicant on bail. He has noted that applicant has never attended the court for six years on any date. The warrants of arrest issued against him also were returned unserved as the applicant was not found residing at the address given by him. As the applicant was absconding, the trial could not be proceeded with. The presence of the applicant is required for proceeding with the trial. There is every possibility of the applicant absconding again in the event of his being released on bail. I see no fault with the reasons given by the learned Judicial Magistrate for rejecting his application. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will only be appropriate to expedite the trial of the applicant as he is in jail. 5. For the aforesaid reasons I pass the following order:- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R . The application is rejected. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the hearing of case no.615 of 2001 and decided it preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the writ of this order. . Application is disposed of accordingly. (D.G. KARNIK, J)