1 APPA 939.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 939 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 954 OF 2010 Mr. Sachin Shamlal Chaudhari. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. Sagar Kasar i/b. A.I. Deshmukh for the Applicant. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 5th AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. Consequent to the order passed by this Court on 22nd November 2010 for taking action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C., the Applicant Sachin Shamlal Chaudhari was arrested by Police and produced before the Sessions Court, Nasik. Warrant was issued by the Trial Court. Bhadrakali Police submitted non execution report of arrest warrant issued by the Trial Court under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. on 3.5.2011 stating therein that the accused was not found on the given address. It emerges from the record placed before us that the Trial 2 APPA 939.11.sxw Court again issued arrest warrant against the Applicant on 3.5.2011, making it returnable on 30th June 2011. The Applicant suo motu appeared before the Trial Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the bail application was filed by the Applicant on 22.6.2011. By an order dated 22.6.2011, the learned Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik rejected the application and directed the Applicant to be taken into custody. The learned Counsel submits that the Applicant was accordingly taken in custody and he continues to be in custody even now. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has placed reliance on the following Judgments reported in :- (i) 2010 All MR (Cri) 120 (State of Maharashtra V/s. Bapu Pandu Mali). (ii) 2004 All MR (Cri) 636 (Prema Bangar Swamy V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). (iii) 2009 All MR (Cri) 2075 (Good Value Marketing Co. Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Montex Corporation & Anr.). 5. The learned Counsel submits that inspite of the directions given by this Court, the Trial Court has not forwarded the report in respect of rejection of the Bail Application of the Applicant. On merits, it was submitted that 3 APPA 939.11.sxw the Applicant deserves bail. The Applicant attended all the dates during the course of the trial and appeared before the Court suo motu though at the first instance the warrant could not be served upon him. The Applicant had mentioned his permanent residential address and undertakes to abide by all the conditions imposed on him while releasing the Applicant on bail. 6. The learned APP submits that appropriate orders could be passed by this Court. 7. We have perused order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Marlapalle and Salvi, JJ.) in Criminal Application No. 693 of 2011, dated 21st June 2011 in respect of identical circumstances occurring, wherein the original co- accused Raju Ramdas Gaikwad was arrested by the Police and the Trial Court rejected his application for bail, the Division Bench had released the original co-accused on bail. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. Perused the Judgments cited before us. The Trial Court ought to have furnished the information of rejection of bail application to the Registry of this Court promptly in compliance with the view adopted by this Court. 9. We are convinced that the Applicant shall be released on bail. 4 APPA 939.11.sxw 10. The Applicant - Sachin Shamlal Chaudhary is directed to be released on bail during pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 954 of 2010 in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to be furnished in the Trial Court. The Applicant shall report to Bhadrakali Police Station once in a month between 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. during pendency of the Appeal. 11. The Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Trial Court and the Registrar (Judicial-I) to communicate the view adopted by this Court in the Judgments cited above to all the Principal District Judges in the State of Maharashtra. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)