1 12711-APLN.5678-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5678 OF 2010 Hemang Chandrakant Shah. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Subhash Jah, i/b. Law Juris, for the Applicant. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. Mr.Satyajeet Mirajkar, Advocate for Intervenor. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 12TH JULY, 2011 [IN CHAMBER, 5:00 PM] P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions on this repeated third anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant/accused who is facing the charges punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2. Admittedly, this is third round of anticipatory bail application. First application being Criminal Application No.2243 of 2010 was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 11th August, 2010 by a reasoned order on merits. 2 12711-APLN.5678-10 Second Criminal Application No.3824 of 2010 was preferred before this same Bench, but, it was withdrawn on 17.9.2010. This is the third anticipatory bail application. It was initially taken before another Bench sometime in December, 2010. Thereafter, present application came before this Bench and vide order dated 1.4.2011 detailed history as to various stages during pendency of the present third anticipatory bail application were narrated. On that day, directions were given to the applicant to remain present before the Court by next date as such request was made on behalf of the State. After said order dated 1.4.2011 was passed by this Bench, the matter was taken before the another Bench on 25.4.2011 due to change of assignment. Subsequently, present application being repeated application for anticipatory bail was again taken before this Bench as earlier two applications were disposed of by this Bench. Under these circumstances, present application was taken before this Bench and on last two dates directions were given for presence of the applicant before the Court during hearing of the anticipatory bail application as such request was made on behalf of the State. On all such 3 12711-APLN.5678-10 dates earlier and also on today's date the applicant remained absent. 3. During the arguments, today it is submitted that repeated application for anticipatory bail can be filed as there is mandate to that effect by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also submitted that there are certain parameters under which the anticipatory bail can be granted and even such relief can be granted on repeated applications. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that though allegedly an amount of Rs.1 crore, 35 lacs and odd was advanced to the applicant and if such factual position is still accepted, the said amount has already been repaid back and such entries are reflected in the statement of account of the complainant Bank and an amount of Rs.70 lacs, Rs.15 lacs and Rs.50 lacs were credited in the account of the complainant bank on respective dates 2.4.2009, 8.4.2009 and 8.4.2009 as payment from R. Krishna Traders. This statement has been categorically controverted by the intervenor/complainant bank and also by the learned A.P.P. for the State. It is further submitted on behalf of the intervenor bank that the said entries as apparently reflected 4 12711-APLN.5678-10 in the statement of account of the complainant bank maintained with Bank of Baroda, Goregaon (West), Mumbai are nothing but manipulation acted by the employee of the bank i.e. Ms.Kashmira Shah and against whom a separate criminal complaint has been lodged by the complainant Bank. 4. Considering the above rival submissions, what is important to mention that the applicant is all along not available to the investigating agency. Moreover, he is not attending this Court though such directions were given repeatedly on every date when the matter was taken earlier for hearing. The main contention now raised on behalf of the applicant as to clearing the entire dues of Rs.1 crore 35 lacs & odd to the complainant bank is disputed by the complainant bank. Moreover, it is a factual position that the chargesheet in the present matter has already been filed before the appropriate Court against the co-accused – purported to be an associate and employee of the present applicant. In the said chargesheet, the present applicant is mentioned as absconding. 5 12711-APLN.5678-10 5. All these facts and circumstances mentioned above do not warrant that here it is a case in which the pre-arrest bail can be granted in favour of the applicant, more so, when the first application for anticipatory bail has already been rejected on merits and this being the third application even do not have merit for grant of such discretionary relief. In the result, present application is disposed of with following order : :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.5678 of 2010 for anticipatory bail stands rejected; [ii] The observations made in the present order are to be considered only for the purpose of present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall not be influenced by these observations when the matter shall be put to trial. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) PPD