0603crn886.09.sxw 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. CRI. APPLN. NO. 886 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 846 OF 2008 Dewanand Premdas Dhurve Vs. The State of Mah. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Abhay Sambre, Adv. for the applicant. Mr. DB Patel, AGP for the respondent. CORAM : A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 06th March, 2009. Seen para No. 2 of the application affidavit. The relevant portion of para 2 reads thus: “...It is submitted that since the applicant was not on bail in the Trial Court, the Trial Court has refused to release the applicant and have orally asked to produce appropriate orders so far as bail bonds and terms of bail”. The operative portion of my order dated 18/02/2009 reads thus: “In supersession of the earlier order dated 11.2.2009, the applicant/appellant be released on bail upon furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety in like amount.” The learned Counsel for the applicant states that despite clear order from 0603crn886.09.sxw 2 this Court to release the applicant on bail, the trial Court has refused to release him on bail and hence he sought clarification. I do not find any ambiguity in the order dated 18/2/2009 which says that P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- with one surety will have to be furnished. Counsel for applicant to point out the same again to trial Court. Application disposed of. JUDGE wwl