BA-670-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.670 OF 2011 Shabbir Hussian Khan ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Kumbharwada Police Station, Bhiwandi ... Respondent Mr. M.K. Kocharekar, i/b. Rajeeva Sawant & Associates, for the Applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 6 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I have gone through the record and proceedings, which have been received from the Court of Sessions, Thane. 3. The Applicant is one of the accused in C.R. No.I-55 of 1991, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147 IPC, 148 IPC, 149 IPC read with Section 302 of the IPC and 120B of the IPC. It appears that the Applicant was released on bail in the sum of Rs.5,000/- by the Court of Sessions, Thane, some time in June, 1992. It appears that the Applicant initially attended the Court, but stopped attending the same since the year 1995. Warrants of arrest issued against BA-670-11.sxw 2 Dixit him could not be executed. Proclamation was also issued against him, but it did not serve any purpose. Ultimately, on 8th February, 2011, he was arrested. By the present application, he now seeks bail again. 4. There are twelve other accused in the said case and I am informed that all of them had absconded. Except the present Applicant, no other accused is today available. 5. Mr. Kocharekar, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant came to be arrested from the same place where he was residing in the year 1992. He submits that the address of the Applicant is the same, as was there in the year 1992. The bail bonds executed by the Applicant also show the same address. According to Mr. Kocharekar, there are number of documents, which were shown to the Sessions Court, showing that the Applicant had not changed his address at all, and that he has been residing at the same address with his family. 6. There appears to be substance in this contention. It is difficult to see how the Applicant was said to be not available to the Police for a period of more than 15 years, when the Applicant had a Bank in the same locality and is said to have been residing at the same address. Apparently, no proper efforts were made to procure the presence of the Applicant. 7. Upon considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the nature of material available against the Applicant, the fact that the other accused are not available, and the fact that the Applicant had, initially, been released on bail by the Court of Sessions, I am inclined to grant the Applicant one more opportunity of availing of liberty, subject to certain conditions. BA-670-11.sxw 3 Dixit 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. The Applicant, on paying a penalty of Rs.5,000/- towards the forfeiture of the previous bail bond executed by him, shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety in like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, on the condition that he shall report to the Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai, everyday between 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., till the disposal of the case against him. 10. R & P be sent back to the Court of Sessions, Thane. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]