1 apln3392-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3392 OF 2010 Sujeet Raghunath Shetty. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Mukesh J. Pabari, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 04TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Pabari for the applicant for sometime on this application for alteration of condition of bail. Also heard learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this matter, allegations against the applicant are that he is involved in the matter punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 etc. of IPC. Allegedly, he forged certain documents and obtained a loan from the bank to the tune of Rs.9 Lakhs and odd. During the investigation, he was arrested in November, 2006. Bail order was passed in his favour by 5th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree on 28.2.2007 2 apln3392-10 asking him to furnish a P.R. bond of Rs.20,000/- with solvent local surety for the like amount. Certain other conditions like attendance to the police station etc. were also imposed. 3. After February, 2007 being unable to produce the bail for Rs.20,000/- he applied for modification of the order before the same Court and asked for his release on personal recognition without asking for any surety. Said application was rejected on 6.7.2010. 4. Now again by the present application, applicant is praying for reduction of the said bail amount to Rs.5,000/- and allow him to deposit Rs.5,000/- in cash. 5. On above prayers, learned AP.P. for the State brought to the notice of this Court that there are four cases of similar nature of forgery and cheating which are pending against the present applicant. They are respectively from E.O.W., Dahisar police station, D.N. Nagar police station and Nagapada police station. Apparently considering such antecedents, though bail was granted in February, 2007, the amount of bond was fixed by the Court. Considering the circumstances, there is nothing 3 apln3392-10 to differently view the matter so as to reduce the bail amount. 6. At this stage, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that instead of one surety for Rs.20,000/- the applicant may be allowed to furnish two local sureties for Rs.10,000/- each. This request can be granted. Hence, the order : :: O R D E R :: [i] Bail order passed on 28.2.2007 is modified to the extent that instead of one solvent local surety for Rs.20,000/-, the applicant is allowed to furnish two local sureties for Rs.10,000/- each. [ii] All other conditions in the said bail order shall remain the same. [iii] With these directions, Criminal Application No. 3392 of 2010 is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) PPD 7.apln3392-10