IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.752 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.752 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.752 OF 2008 Dnyandev Dadu Ovhal ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr R. K. Khude, Advocate for the applicant. Mr S. R. Shinde, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 16.4.2008. DATED: 16.4.2008. DATED: 16.4.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and the material available on record. 3. The applicant-original accused arrested in C. R. No. 120 of 1991, registered with Pen Police Station for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The factual matrix drawn in the order dated 29.1.2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag at Raigad reads as under:- "Applicants are absent on 18.3.1993, 23.4.1993, 2.9.94, 7.11.94, 16.2.95, 20.3.95, 5.5.95, 8.6.95, 22.2.96., 5.7.96, 26.7.96, 26.9.96, 19.12.96, 6.2.97, 12.6.97, 9.3.98, 9.4.98, 17.5.98, 12.10.98, 10.11.98, 18.9.00, 12.1.2001, 12.4.2001, 23.4.2001, 18.6.2001, 25.7.2001, 14.8.2001, 7.9.2001, 7.10.2001, 11.12.2001, 18.2.2002, 22.4.2002, 23.7.2002, 5.9.2002, 25.11.2002, 29.3.2004, 21.5.2004, 10.6.2004, 23.6.2004, 12.7.2004, 26.7.2004, 10.8.2004, 23.8.2004, 3.9.2004, 17.12.2004 since last 15 yrs. Case is pending before JMFC court. It could not be committed due to absence of applicants and co-accused as charge sheet is filed, there is no question of innocence of the applicants, they are in custody by the JMFC Pen, as they jumped the bail. Hence, this application is to be decided in the light of the above facts on record. 6." There is no need to decide this application for bail again on merit. From the long pendency of case before JMFC Pen, it reveals that applicants have misused the liberty granted to them and they jumped bail. Reasons given by them to show bonafide are devoid of any substance. Repeatedly, NBWs are issued against them for the years together at 11th hours. They appeared before the Court in August, 2007 to show their bonfires. Their long absence certainly delayed the case which was also sent back to the JMFC pen. Hence, according to me, applicants are not entitled for bail at this stage, as case is pending for committal, whereabouts of accused no.1 are not ascertained. So at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail again. With this I proceed to pass the following order." 5. There is no material to take a view contrary to the view already taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag at Raigad in its order dated 29.1.2008 in Application No.69 of 2008. 6. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out for grant of bail. The reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag at Raigad in its order dated 29.1.2008 in Bail Application No.69 of 2008 hold good. 7. In the result, the present application stands rejected. 8. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)