1 Cri-A-5529-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5529 OF 2010 Mr. Sarfaraz Sharif Hamdule ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. Shavez Mukri, Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th December, 2010. P.C. 1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned APP. 2. The applicant is cited as a prosecution witness in Sessions Case No. 9/2010 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree. Witness summons was served on him to remain present on 15.11.2010 to give evidence in the matter. On that day, inspite of service of summons, he did not appear before the Court. Therefore, the learned Judge issued non-bailable warrant against him, returnable on 7.12.2010, when the matter was fixed for evidence. 3. On 7.12.2010, he was arrested. He made an application to be 2 Cri-A-5529-10.sxw released on bail on the ground that on the earlier date, he had been to native place to attend some marriage. The learned Judge rejected the application observing that after the witness was brought before the Court under a warrant, he was put in the witness box. Even upon warning given to him ten times, he did not utter any words to give evidence and, therefore, the matter could not proceed further. In view of this, the application was rejected. The copy of Roznama produced by the learned Counsel shows that the witness was put in the witness box as a witness PW-3 and it was given Exhibit No.25.As per the note made by the learned Judge on the bail application, it appears that the applicant was adamant and he did not open his mouth inspite of warning given to him ten times to give evidence. It indicates that he was adamant not to give evidence in the matter. In fact, he was brought before the Court only to give evidence. Had he given evidence, as soon as the evidence would be over, he would be free. There was no reason for the Court to keep him in custody, but due to his adamant attitude not to give evidence, the learned Judge was compelled to take him into custody and refused bail. Now, the matter is fixed for evidence on 14.12.2010. In view of the fact that firstly he did not appear inspite of service of summons and then after he was brought before the Court, he refused to give evidence and the Court was compelled to take him into custody, I find that it will not be in the interest of justice to release him on bail unless his evidence is recorded. 3 Cri-A-5529-10.sxw 4. Therefore, the application is rejected. The prosecution shall complete recording of evidence on 14.12.2010. As soon as the evidence is completed, the applicant shall be released on the same day. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)