appln3304-09&308-10 RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3304 OF 2009 Prabhavati Bhivaji Parkhi .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors .. Respondents ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 308 OF 2010 Jagannath D. Parkhi and Ano .. Applicants Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Pune .. Respondent Mr. Sudhir Halli for the Applicant in Appln 3304 of 2009 Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for the Applicants in 308 of 2010 Mr. J.R. Solanki with Y.M. Nakhawa for CBI CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 28th JULY, 2010 IN CHAMBER AT 2.40 P.M. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in Regular Criminal Case No. 10 of 2003. The said case pertains to Deccan Gymkhana Police Station Pune. The prosecution case is that the applicants forged letterhead of the then Prime Minister 1 appln3304-09&308-10 Shri. Indrakumar Gujral and forged his signature. The C.B.I. is prosecuting them in R.C.C. No. 10 of 2003. In the said case, the applicants came to be granted bail. However, thereafter, as the applicants were not attending the court regularly, non-bailable warrants were issued against them and ultimately, they were taken into custody. 3. In the present case, the High Court had expedited the matter and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. In order to conclude the trial, the presence of the accused was necessary, however, the accused were not attending the court. They remained absent before the court and period of six months expired. 4. Thereafter again the accused remained absent, therefore, warrants came to be issued. The warrant could not be served as the accused could not be traced, therefore surety amount was forfeited and credited to the Government. 00 5. It is seen that when the matter was fixed for hearing, the accused have under one or other pretext employed delaying tactics to prolong the trial. The accused also constantly remained absent, therefore, lastly NBW was issued against the accused in order to secure their presence. The accused were released on bail on furnishing solvent surety. 2 appln3304-09&308-10 After furnishing surety, the accused started to breach the conditions of the bond. Whenever, the witness remained present, the accused remained absent before the Court. Therefore, even though witness was present before the Court it was not possible to commence the evidence. Partly examination in chief was recorded in presence of the counsel of the accused. On the next date of hearing the learned counsel for the accused submitted no instructions pursis. As the accused remained absent before the Court, therefore, again warrant was issued against them. The said warrant was cancelled on 10.3.2008 with condition that the accused shall appear before the Court on the date fixed. After the cancellation of NBW, again the accused has not followed the said condition and remained absent before the Court. Thus, the accused committed breach of bond. Therefore, NBW was issued. The accused for one or other reason avoided to execute the warrant. Therefore, notice to surety was issued. The surety did not produce the accused. Therefore, for the second time the surety amount was forfeited and credited to the Government. The accused were present before the Court for cancellation of NBW. The said application Exh.314 and 315 came to be rejected and the order of taking the accused in custody was passed on 3.4.2008. As soon as the order was passed, both the accused left the premises of the Court. Thereafter, the applicants came to be taken 3 appln3304-09&308-10 into custody. Hence, this fresh applications for bail 6. It is seen that though the appeal has been expedited by this court, the applicants are somehow prolonging the trial by sending large number of applications through jail. It is stated that number of these applications is more than 200. The accused persons are making these applications on various grounds, many of them are frivolous. These applications are causing delay in the trial. On the one hand, the accused are making repeated applications and on the other hand, they are saying that the trial has got delayed and are seeking benefit of account of this delay. 7. It is also seen that the accused in some recent applications preferred by them have even prayed for stay of trial. Obviously, in view of the flood of applications my the accused, it would be difficult for any trial court to proceed with the trial. Despite this, the trial court has managed to examine seven witnesses which given the circumstances of this case is extremely creditable,. The learned counsel for C.B.I. stated that the prosecution wishes to examine another 4-5 witnesses only. 8. In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to grant bail at this stage. However, looking to the fact that the 4 appln3304-09&308-10 applicants are in custody since March, 2008 and the fact that the trial has been expedited, the trial court to endeavor to dispose of the trial as far as possible by 5th October, 2010. If the trial is not concluded by that date, liberty to the applicants to prefer fresh application for bail. The learned counsel for the applicants to communicate this order to the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the applicants on instructions assure that the applicants will not prefer any more such applications before the trial court. 8. Applications are disposed of. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5 appln3304-09&308-10 6