1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.973 OF 2010 Rambrije Kanhaiyalal Bhardwaj ..Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. ..... Mr.D. V. Soman, Advocate for applicant. Mr.P.P. More, APP for respondent. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 22nd March, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.D.V. Soman, learned Counsel for applicant and Mr.P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant for grant of bail in connection with C.R. No.I-30/2010 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, since he is arrested thereunder on 24.02.2010. 2 3. At the outset, the applicant had preferred application for anticipatory bail bearing Criminal Misc. Application no.91/2008 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar and same was granted by the said Court, and, it was directed that in the event of arrest of applicant under the said C.R. No.I-30/2008 by Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, he be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) on furnishing surety and P.R. bond of like amount. Thereafter, the charge sheet came to be filed in the said case on 16th September, 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar. In fact, the said order of anticipatory bail was in force till filing of the charge sheet. However, the applicant did not prefer any application for regular bail after filing of charge sheet, but surrendered himself before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 24.12.2010, and since after filing of the charegesheet on 16.09.2009, the applicant had not preferred any application for regular bail and surrendered after about 5 months, the learned Magistrate took the applicant in custody on 24.02.2010 and sent to him judicial custody. Hence, the applicant preferred the 3 present application for regular bail. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he was not aware about the filing of the charge sheet on 16.09.2009 and he had been to his native place, and therefore, could not attend the Court of learned Magistrate and not preferred application for regular bail, but he surrendered himself suomoto on 24.02.2010, and he was taken in the custody, and therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that bonafide of the applicants were clear since he surrendered suomoto before the learned Magistrate, and therefore, he be released on bail. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the only grievance against the applicant is that he has no permanent residential address in Maharashtra and apprehension was posed that he would jump the bail, if he is released on bail. In the said context, the learned Counsel for the applicant today furnished the address of the applicant at Mumbai, Ahmednagar as well as permanent address duly certified by his employer namely; viz Sahakar 4 Agencies Pvt. Ltd., along with praecipe and same is taken on record and same is marked at document `X' accordingly. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in service of Sahakar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., at Octroi Naka at Ahmednagar and will be available for the trial, and there is no possibility of his jumping the bail, as apprehended by the respondent. 6. The learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and submitted that the applicant has no fix place of abode and there is every possibility that the applicant would jump the bail if he is released on bail. It is also submitted that since the applicant is under the employment of Sahakar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., as stated by him, the tender contract for the said agency is only for year to year, and hence applicant may not be available after completion of tender contract. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that, strict condition be imposed upon the applicant if he is released on bail to ensure his presence for the trial. 7. After considering the rival submissions 5 advanced by both the sides, since the applicant was granted anticipatory bail earlier, he is entitled to be released on bail in the present application. However, his presence is required to be ensured for trial. To meet the grievance of the respondent that the applicant has no fix place of abode, the learned Counsel for the applicant has furnished the address of the applicant at Bombay, Ahmednagar as well as at at Narayanpur, Post.Chakiya, Dist.Varansasi (Uttarpradesh) by way of praecipe, which is annexed at Document `X' collectively. Moreover, the strict conditions can be imposed upon the applicant while granting bail that the applicant shall furnish the local surety as well as shall not leave local limits of Ahmednagar without taking permission from the concerned Court, and accordingly, the present application deserves to be allowed. 8. In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing the surety of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand) and on executing P.R. bond of the like amount on the following terms and conditions: 6 a) The applicant shall furnish local surety from Ahmednagar in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand). b) The applicant shall not leave local limits of Ahmednagar without seeking prior permission of the District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. c) The applicant shall give attendance to the concerned police station once in the fortnight till completion of the trial. 9. The criminal application stands disposed of accordingly. 10. The parties to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sirestedar. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri973.10