IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3269 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3269 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3269 OF 2008 Balbhim @ Appa Vithal Londhe ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr R. K. Bobade, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr H. J. Dedhia, A.P.P for the Respondent-State. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 07.10.2008. DATED: 07.10.2008. DATED: 07.10.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and the material available on record. 3. The applicant-accused in C.R.No. 3 of 2008 registered with Police Station, Mangalwedha, District Solapur for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 4. By an order dated 2.5.2008 the applicant was directed to disclose as to whether next to the road side of his Dhaba any agricultural land owned by him is situated. This order was not complied with by the applicant. Consequently, the matter was placed on board on 5.5.2008. 5. On 5.5.2008 the learned counsel for the applicant was asked to file affidavit by the next date i.e. 6.5.2008. He flately refused to comply with the order dated 2.5.2008. However, in order to grant chance to comply with the order dated 2.5.2008, the matter was adjourned beyond vacation i.e. on 3.6.2008, so as to seek compliance of the order dated 2.5.2008. 6. The above matter again appeared on board on 3.6.2008. The applicant, despite lapse of more than five weeks, the applicant did not comply with the order dated 2.5.2008 with the result, the application for anticipatory bail was finally rejected looking to the attitude and conduct of the applicant. 7. The applicant, thereafter, again moved another Bail Application No. 1870 of 2008 without complying ( 3 ) with the earlier orders. Consequently, second Bail Application was turned down holding that the applicant did not deserve any discretion considering the conduct and the attitude of the applicant not to co-operate with the Court. 8. The past experience, attitude and conduct of the applicant not to co-operate with the Court leaves no doubt that he may not even co-operate with the Investigating Agency. Merely because some other accused is granted bail on merits, cannot be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail on parity in favour of the applicant, who has no regard to the orders of the Court. Even, today, there is nothing on record showing compliance of the earlier order dated 2.5.2008 followed by an order dated 5.5.2008. 9. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that inspite of rejection of anticipatory bail application, the applicant has moved another application for anticipatory bail without complying with the earlier order of this Court, before the Additional Sessions Court, Pandharpur, which came to ( 4 ) be rejected by an order dated 9.9.2008 observing as under:- "The very fact that the present applicant is keeping himself outside the network of the police since after the commission of the alleged offence in question, itself, shows that he is avoiding arrest. Why the police are unable to lay their hands on the present applicant in spite of the fact that the incident in question is alleged to have taken place on or about 17.2.2008. Considering these facts and the fact that the offence in question is pertaining to the economy of this state. I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, I reject the application..." 10. Perusal of the aforesaid para shows that the applicant has been consistently adopting a systematic scheme to keep himself away from the Investigating agency right from the month of May, 2008. 11. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. For reasons recorded herein as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Pandharpur, application stand rejected. ( 5 ) 12. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)