[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.743 OF 2007 Smt.Parvin K.Irani ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents ... Mr.H.E.Palve & Rajesh Targe counsel for applicant Mrs.A.S.Pai A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : MARCH 22, 2007 DATE : MARCH 22, 2007 DATE : MARCH 22, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No. 27 of 2006 of Satpur Police Station, Nasik. The said case is under Sections 363, 365, 384, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC. 3. The applicant has earlier preferred application for anticipatory bail before this Court. The said application was rejected by order dated 17.3.2006. When the application came to be rejected, the applicant sought time to surrender. The applicant was granted 7 days time to surrender. The said order is dated 17.3.2006, however, the applicant [-2-] did not surrender before the police in stipulated period of 7 days or even next 6 to 7 months. 4. Now it is the case of the applicant that she has appeared before the police station in December, 2006 and the investigation is over. It is thus stated that as the investigation is complete, applicant may be granted anticipatory bail especially looking to the fact that she is a lady. 5. It is an admitted fact that charge sheet is not filed. The applicant was granted seven days time to surrender by this Court. However, it is the case of the applicant that she appeared before the police sometime in December, 2006. The applicant remained absconding for almost 9 months. The application has earlier been rejected on merits. 6. Looking to all these facts and especially conduct of the applicant, I do not think that this is a fit case wherein discretion can be used in favour of applicant. Hence, application is rejected. [ V.K.Tahilramani, J.] [-3-]