[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2560 OF 2008 Prakashkumar Lasaji Prajapati and another ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.M.K.Kocharekar Advocate for Applicants Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 30, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are original accused nos.9 and 11 in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2006 pending before the Sessions Court at Sewree. The said case pertains to CR No. 128 of 2005 of DCB CID. The said case is mainly under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC. 3. Both the applicants were released on bail in the said case. However, thereafter during the trial, they did not remain present, hence, N.B.Ws. [-2-] came to be issued. This Court granted permission to the applicants to move the concerned Sessions Court for cancellation of N.B.Ws. The said application came to be rejected and the applicants came to be taken into custody. While rejecting the said application, the learned Sessions Judge noticed that the applicants were not residing at the addresses which were given by them for more than a year. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge observed that if the application is allowed then the possibility of the applicants absconding, cannot be ruled out. On this ground, the application came to be rejected. 4. As far as the applicant no.1 is concerned, it is seen that he was not present before the trial Court on 9 dates. Moreover, when applicant no.1 was granted bail by order dated 26.4.2006, a condition was imposed on him that he shall attend the office of DCB CID on first and second of every month. The learned APP has pointed out that the applicant no.1 did not attend the office of DCB CID in the month of July, 2006 then from March, 2007 to July, 2007 and again in the month of January, 2008. [-3-] 5. While granting bail, a condition was also imposed on applicant no.1 that he shall not leave the limits of Greater Mumbai without permission of the Court. However, it is seen that applicant no.1 had left Mumbai and he had gone to Jaipur. Two cases are registered against applicant no.1 in Jaipur i.e. CR No.54 of 2007 of Nanichowk Police Station, Jaipur under Section 394 and 392 of IPC and CR No.138 of 2007 of Kotwali Police Station, Jaipur under Section 392 of IPC. It is seen that after the applicant no.1 was granted bail, he has misused the liberty granted to him. He has flouted the condition imposed on him by the Court while granting bail. Looking to all these facts, as applicant no.1 is concerned, I do not think that this is a fit case to release him on bail. 6. As far as applicant no.2 is concerned, the allegation against applicant no.2 is that he was absent on one date before the Sessions Court. Mr.Kocharekar pointed out that on that date exemption application had been moved on behalf of the applicant no.2. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant no.2 only. [-4-] 7. The applicant no.2-Ramlal Balaji Prajapati be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousand only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant to report to DCB CID Unit-I, on every Saturday till the trial is over. In addition to that, he shall attend on all the dates before the Sessions Court. 8. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]