FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: 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 SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRI.APPLICATION NO.3186 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3186 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3186 OF 2008 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr R.M.Tiwari, for the applicant. Ms A.T.Javeri, APP for the respondent. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. DATED: 08.10.2008 DATED: 08.10.2008 DATED: 08.10.2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: Heard Mr Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms Javeri, learned APP, for the State. By this application, the applicant is seeking modification of the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 18.8.2008 and seeking permission to deposit cash bail for Rs.25,000/- instead of solvent surety as directed by the trial Court. The Court below, while granting the bail vide order dated 18.8.2008, directed the applicant to furnish P.R bond of Rs.25,000/- with solvent surety in the like amount. Indulgence was also shown to the applicant by allowing him to deposit cash bail for a period of four weeks to enable him to furnish solvent surety. Mr.Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently submitted that direction the applicant to furnish solvent surety is harsh in view of the fact that the applicant hails from Andhra Pradesh and it is not possible for him to furnish solvent surety in the matter. In support of his contention, he placed heavy reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Moti Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 Cri.L.J. 1703. Admittedly, the applicant originally comes from Andhra Pradesh and he does not have any immovable property in this state. That appears to be the reason why the learned Judge, while enlarging him on bail, directed him to furnish solvent surety in the like amount. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the order of the Court below can be modified only to the extent of allowing the applicant to furnish one or two solvent sureties to make up the said amount. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant does not apply to the facts of this case and the modification, as sought, cannot be made in view of the fact that the applicant does not have either permanent residence or any other immovable property in the State of Maharashtra. To secure his presence he will have to furnish surety as stated above. The application is accordingly disposed of. Time to furnish surety is extended for a period of three weeks from today. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)