..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2497 OF 2008 Kamlesh Parmanand Karnavat @ Parmavat. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Vinod Wagh, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.128 of 2005 of DCB CID Unit-I, Mumbai. The said case is mainly under Sections 395, 397 of IPC. 3. The applicant was granted bail by order dated 15.12.2006 on certain conditions. The ..(2).. conditions were that the applicant was to report to police station once in a week on every Saturday between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial and (b) that the applicant shall co-operate for early disposal of the trial. In the event, the trial Court is of the opinion that the applicant is responsible for delay in trial, the Court to record an opinion that the applicant is responsible for delaying the trial and that could be a basis for cancellation of bail. There were some additional conditions also but they are not relevant for the present application. 4. The applicant remained absent on 11.5.2007, 18.5.2007 and 14.6.2007 and when he was called upon to explain the same, he filed a medical certificate stating that he was sick during the period from 3.6.2007 to 6.6.2007. This medical certificate did not state anything about the absence of applicant on 11.5.2007 and 18.5.2007. 5. The medical certificate also shows that the applicant was only suffering from fever. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that ..(3).. on 11.5.2007 the learned Advocate for the applicant came prepared with an application for exemption of the applicant, however, as the Court was vacant the said application could not be tendered. As far as the date 18.5.2007 is concerned, no explanation has been given in respect of the same. In view of this fact, the trial Court issued NBW against the applicant and he came to be taken into custody on 15.6.2007. Hence the applicant is praying for bail. 6. It is seen that the applicant did not attend the trial court and hence the trial could not proceed. The court in its order dated 15.12.2006 whereby the applicant came to be granted bail, has specifically observed that if the applicant is responsible for delaying the trial that could be a basis for cancellation of bail. In addition thereto, condition was imposed on the applicant that he shall attend the police station once in a week on every Saturday till conclusion of the trial. The learned APP has pointed out that the applicant last attended the office of DCB CID on 13.4.2007 and thereafter the ..(4).. applicant failed to report to office of DCB CID. 7. The learned APP has pointed out that the applicant was also involved in three other cases i.e. ------------------------------------------------ C.R. U/sec. Police Station No. ------------------------------------------------ 1. 92/2004 465, 467, 468, L.T.Marg Police 471, 473, 474 Station. 420 r/w. 34 IPC. 2. 143/2004 420, 170, 382, D.C.B.,C.I.D., 447, 411, r/w.34 Mumbai. IPC. 3. 251/2001 420 r/w. 34 IPC. V.P.Road Police Station. ------------------------------------------------- 8. The learned APP further stated that the trial has started and the said trial is going before the Fast Track Court. Four witnesses have been examined in the said case. Looking to the conduct of the applicant there appears reasonable possibility of the applicant not being available for trial if he is released on bail. Hence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail, at this stage. Application for bail is rejected. ..(5).. The trial to be completed as far as possible by 31st December, 2008. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)