1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2909 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 127 OF 1998 Dattu s/o Kisan Amrute ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri V.S.Bedre, advocate for applicant/appellant Smt. B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 23 rd July, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri V.S.Bedre, advocate for applicant/appellant. 2 Leave to correct para no.4 of the application granted. 3 Issue notice to the respondent. Smt. B.R.Khekale, learned A.P.P. accepts notice for the respondent, and accordingly, heard Smt. 2 Khekale, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 4 This is an application preferred by the applicant/appellant requesting to modify/recall the order passed by this court on 15.7.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1998 issuing bailable warrant against the applicant/appellant herein. 5 The applicant/appellant submits that he has filed Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1998 challenging the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No.12 of 1996 on 22.4.1998 and same is pending for final hearing. The applicant/appellant also submits that the afore said Criminal Appeal was on Board on 15.7.2010 for final hearing, but advocate for the applicant was not present before the court, and therefore, this court issued bailable warrant against the applicant/appellant. In the said context, the applicant submits that his advocate had filed leave note from 12.7.2010 to 15.7.2010 and the advocate for the applicant was out of the town for family function and was unable to attend the hearing of Criminal Appeal. Accordingly, the applicant/appellant submits that the advocate for the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause and reason and there was no deliberate absence on his part. The applicant/appellant undertakes that he shall remain present before the court on the next date and shall prosecute the hearing of the appeal. 3 6 In the light of the afore said contention and fact, the present application deserves to be allowed and the order passed on 15.7.2010 issuing bailable warrant against the applicant/appellant deserves to be recalled. Moreover, it also appears from the proceedings of Criminal Appeal NO. 127 of 1998 that the bailable warrant as directed on 15.7.2010 is yet to be issued against the appellant. 7 In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed and the order of issuance of bailable warrant against the applicant/appellant passed on 15.7.2010 stands recalled, with direction to the applicant/appellant to remain present before the court on the next date. i.e. on 16.8.2010 and present application stands disposed of. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap2909.10