1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLIATION NO. 5020 OF 2009 Sujit Raghunath Shetty .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Ms Kranti S.S. Anand for the applicant. Mrs V.R. Bhossale, APP for the respondent – State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is a second application for bail filed by the applicant. His first application was rejected by this Court by order dated 18/2/2009. Applicant has been arrested on a complaint filed by Mr. K. Chandrashekhar who was the Manager of UCO Bank, Colaba Branch, Mumbai on 22/6/2004 and a criminal case was registered at Colaba Police Station vide C.R. No.125 of 2004 under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Applicant’s case is that the applicant alongwith other 2 co-accused, in collusion, has siphoned off the amount of Rs 38,60,000/- of housing loan and Rs 16,00,000/- of mortgage loan which was availed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The investigation was transferred to Unit-I, E.O.W., Crime Branch, Mumbai and a new C.R being C.R. No. 40 of 2004 was given by E.O.W. So far, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses. It is submitted that the prosecution proposes to examine 2/3 new witnesses and that they would like to recall four witnesses who were previously examined since the present applicant was absconding at the time when they were examined. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the prosecution has tried to misled this Court by stating that there are 52 cases pending against the present applicant. She submitted that, in all, only 14 cases are pending against the present applicant. 5. Mrs. Bhosale, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, however, pointed out that all these 52 cases have been clubbed together in 14 cases and in 12 known cases, the amount has been recovered and complaint has not been registered as documents are genuine and in two known cases, recovery procedure is initiated. Thus, though as stated earlier, 52 cases are pending, it appears that some of these cases are clubbed together in 14 criminal cases. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 applicant submitted that though trial is expedited, prosecution has not examined the witnesses and is trying to delay the proceedings. A grievance is also made regarding the manner in which the Sessions Court was recording the evidence. It is submitted that the applicant had filed an application for transfer of the said cases from the Sessions Court which was trying the accused. 7. I have perused the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the prosecution. It appears that when earlier 7 witnesses were examined, the present applicant was not available at that time and, therefore, it has become necessary to recall these witnesses. The prosecution has also given reasons for the delay in prosecution in its affidavit in reply. It is stated that, initially, applicant was arrested on 30/7/2004. After the bail was granted, he was not available at the time of framing of charge in the Sessions Court till 2006 and, therefore, charge was framed against four persons. During trial these persons applied for exemption and, thereafter, they are absconding till date and they are not traceable and, therefore, trial is delayed. Thereafter, when the complainant Chandrashekhar was called from Bangalore for being examined, the advocates for absconding accused withdrew their vakalatnama and the examination-in-chief of the complainant could not be conducted. Thereafter, applicant was arrested by D.N. Nagar Police Station while attempting yet another similar cheating case in Vijaya Bank, Andheri Branch, Mumbai. Thereafter, various dates were taken by 4 the applicant on the one pretext or the other. Thereafter, application was filed by him in Court seeking discharge under section 255 of the IPC. The grievance made by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that delaying tactics are adopted by the prosecution. She submitted that though original documents were tendered by the prosecution on 19/12/2008, xerox copies were filed in Court in 2009 and, as a result, Court had to pass order directing them to produce the originals. In the affidavit in reply, an explanation has been given by the prosecution. It appears that the relevant documents were sent by the Registrar Sessions Court, Sewri to the Sessions Court Mumbai on 19/12/2008 and were received back by the Sessions Court Sewri on 19/6/2009. During this time, an application was filed by the applicant for bail and only after the said application was rejected, the prosecution could, thereafter, proceed with the trial. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the prosecution is responsible for delaying the trial, therefore, cannot be accepted since applications also have been preferred by the present applicant. The prosecution has, therefore, expressed their apprehension that the applicant is likely to abscond if he is released on bail. The other three accused after having been released on bail have not yet been available and still absconding. It is further pointed out that in the application, the applicant has given his permanent residence as 1104, Dhruv Building, S.V. Road, Ashokvan, Borivili (East) Mumbai 66. It is pointed out in the affidavit in reply that the said premises had long been sealed 5 by the Bharat Co-op Bank, against mortgage loan on 6/3/2004 and, apart from Bharat Co-operative Bank, Saraswat Co-operative Bank and North Canara Co-operative Bank are also having dispute for taking possession of the above mentioned flat. 8. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, in my view, no case is made out by the applicant for grant of bail. There is no change in the circumstances. Trial has already begun. Though grievance is made by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail for more than four years, it appears that the applicant has not cooperated with the Sessions Court and made various applications, as a result of which trial could not be completed. 9. Application for bail is, therefore, rejected. Trial is expedited. Applicant is directed to cooperate with the Sessions Court. 10. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 6