1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1177 OF 2010 Shri Jiten Parmananddas Mody : Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr.H.K.Prem and Mr.B.K.Darad for the applicant. Mr.R.S.Hingorani, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr.V. Parekh for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By the present application, the applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, dated 3.3.2010 whereby issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant. 2 3. Though the applicant had earlier challenged the said order by way of revision before the learned Sessions Judge, noticing that the order impugned was interlocutory, the applicant has undertaken to withdraw the same and the learned senior counsel for the applicant makes a statement that the same would be withdrawn at 3.00 p.m. today. 4. The applicant is an accused in a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 which is pending since 1991. The applicant was discharged from the offence charged with. The said order was challenged by the respondent no.2 in revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The said revision was allowed and the applicant was directed to remain present before the trial Court for the purpose of framing the charge. The said order has been challenged before this Court and the matter is pending at the stage of condonation of delay in filing the revision application. 5. As such, in pursuance of the order passed by the learned revisional Court, the applicant was bound to appear before the learned Magistrate. It appears that the applicant has been seeking adjournments on one ground or the other and trying to avoid appearance before the learned Magistrate. In this factual background, no error could be found with the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate was fully justified in issuing the order of non-bailable warrant. However, in 3 the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly taking into consideration the age of the applicant and further that an undertaking has been filed by the applicant that he will appear before the learned trial Court on every day, though finding no error in the order passed by the learned Magistrate, I am inclined to set aside the said order. 6. The undertaking filed by the applicant is taken on record and marked `X’ for identification. 7. The order dated 3.3.2010 issuing non-bailable warrant is quashed and set aside. 8. The applicant is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on every date. The applicant shall also execute a bond for his appearance, if so required by the learned Magistrate. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. B. R. GAVAI, J.