1 cr-apln-4066-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO.4066 OF 2010 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.124 OF 2009 IN COURT CASE NO.1940/PW OF 2009 IN CR.NO. 262 OF 2009 Pandi Sanyasi Nadar ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr.D.R.Tiwari Adv. for applicant Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused no.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2 The applicant has preferred this application for quashing of order dated 8.6.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2009. The said order reads as under: 2 cr-apln-4066-10 “PB of accused no.1 and cash security of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively forfeited to the State. Issue N BW to the accused no.1 with notice to his surety to produce the accused. Issue RW of Rs.20,000/- of forfeiture of PB of the said accused which be served by Malad PI by attaching the said amount from the accused and his family members if not by attaching property worth Rs.20,000/- and by selling the same, the PB forfeiture be recovered and deposited in the court as court work is totally held up due to absence of accused and his advocate. ” 3 The learned advocate for the applicant pointed out that on 11.1.2010 the applicant came to be granted bail on executing his PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. In addition, the applicant was directed to furnish cash security in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each. The Roznama shows that the applicant was present in Court on all dates till 17.4.2010. On 17.4.2010 also he remained present when the matter came to be adjourned to 8.6.2010. On 8.6.2010, the applicant failed to remain present before the Court, hence, this order came to be passed. 4 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the 3 cr-apln-4066-10 could not remain present on that day as he was unwell. He stated on instructions that hereafter the applicant will remain present before the trial Court on all dates so also his advocate will remain present and one last chance be given to the applicant before such harsh order is passed. 5 In view of the statement made by the learned advocate, I am inclined to give one chance to the applicant. Hence, the order dated 8.6.2010 except forfeiture of cash security, is set aside. As far as the cash security in the sum of Rs.5,000/- which has already been forfeited to the State is concerned, it shall remain forfeited. The applicant shall remain present with his advocate before the trial Court on 16.10.2010. If on 16.10.2010 or thereafter the applicant remains absent, the learned Sessions Judge shall pass appropriate orders as he may deem fit and proper in accordance with law. 6 Liberty to prefer separate application in respect of prayer clause (c). 7 Application is disposed of. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]