/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1202/06 Shri Kailash Sitaram Adalgale .....Applicant V/s. The state of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mrs.P.P. Kakade for the applicant Shri.R.Y.Mirza APP for the State CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 03/04/06 P.C: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant was arrested in connection with C.R.No.46/05 for the offences punishable U/s.326, 307, 506(i) of IPC. 3. It is alleged that the applicant was in love with the complainant but she was giving no response to him and therefore being infuriated, applicant / 2 / threw acid on her face. Applicant was, therefore arrested and he was released on bail by this court on 17th August, 2005. Examination in chief of the complainant was recorded on 06/10/2005. Thereafter on 19/11/2005 application for adjournment was made by applicant that he needed legal assistance and thereafter, he sought time to cross examine the complainant. Thereafter, an application was made for cancellation of bail granted to applicant, by the prosecution. Trial Court in the application for cancellation of bail came to the conclusion that applicant was delaying the trial and had taken the adjournment on various grounds. His bail was therefore, cancelled. The applicant again therefore, preferred Criminal Application No.8079/05 which was allowed by this court. However, while releasing the accused on bail, his undertaking was accepted and noted in the order. 4. This Court observed that “Apart from this Ms.Kakade appearing in support of this application states that now the applicant would engage another Advocate in case he so desires within a period of one week from today and even if no arrangements are made, / 3 / he shall proceed with the trial and shall not seek adjournment on the ground of engagement of Advocate. He undertakes to remain present on every date of hearing in the sessions court and in case he could not remain make any arrangement for an Advocate, he shall abide by such orders as the session Judge may pass including providing legal aid”. 5. In view of undertaking given by applicant this court was pleased to release applicant on bail. This Court, however observed as under:- “Needless to state that in case applicant does not cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and seeks unnecessary adjournments, this order will be liable to be cancelled without reference to this court.” 6. Trial court in its order further observed that in spite of the undertaking given by accused he does not proceed with the case. Therefore, court had no other option to cancel the bail which was granted by this court. I have perused the order of sessions court. I do not see any reason to interfere said / 4 / order. 7. It is obvious that accused is trying to protract the proceeding by remaining absent or seeks adjournment in the court on each and every date hoping that out of frustration the complainant may turn hostile or she may not appear in the court and support the prosecution's case. Conduct of the applicant is depricable and Sessions Court therefore was in right not entertaining the application of applicant. 8. Application is accordingly disposed of. V.M. KANADE, J.