1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No. 4446 of 2009 (Vinayak s/o Shriram Bhise Vs. The State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. N.S.Ghanekar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.D.Rakh, A.G.P. for respondent State. Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Adv., for complainant. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:1-2-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. N.S.Ghanekar, Counsel for the accused/applicant, learned A.G.P. for respondent State and Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Counsel for the complainant. 2. By an order dt.8th Oct.,2009, on hearing Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Counsel appearing for the complainant and on perusal of the record, in Criminal Application No.2091/2009, it was directed to keep said Application in abeyance to hear the accused/applicant. However, it was indicated in para 6 of the said 2 order, that accused/applicant Vinayak Bhise has misused his liberty. He is not entitled to continue on bail. He should be taken in custody immediately. 3. This order was challenged by the accused/applicant before the Apex Court, however, on 24.11.2009, on the prayer of the learned Counsel for the accused/applicant, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Mr. Ghanekar advanced submissions as to what has transpired in the Honourable Supreme Court. Mr. V.D.Sapkal rightly canvassed, this Court will have to look to the matter in the light of available record and there is no specific direction from the Apex Court in the manner and matter as addressed by Mr.Ghanekar. I quite see, there are no such directions from the Apex Court as were advanced by Mr.Ghanekar. 5. The fact remains, while entertaining application of the 3 complainant, the conduct of present accused/applicant was presented, showing his disregard to the orders of this Court and, prima facie, indication of misuse of the bail granted in M.C.O.C. case, being bail petition No.588/2009 dt. 9.6.2009. 6. The accused/applicant was required mandatorily to attend Kranti Chowk Police Station which he failed to attend. There was no concession granted by the Court of competence to do so. Mr. Ghanekar submits such absence was for a single day, which was supported by Medical Officer and should not have entailed in cancellation of the liberty. 7. It is not that a single day's absence matters, the conduct of the accused/applicant before even the Kranti Chowk Police Station speaks volumes. Though Mr. V.D.Sapkal argued about the potential conduct of the Police in sidelining the efforts of the accused to dodge the Court process, 4 however, without adverting to the same, the fact remains, inspite of there being an order of this Court dt.8th Oct.,2009, the accused/applicant herein has successfully evaded the process, he has not surrendered nor any effort could be made by the prosecution to nab him to show at least compliance of orders of this Court. The apathy shown by the investigator needs simply to be condemned instead of hauling the officer concerned. 8. The request that accused/applicant was not heard at the time of the above order, was a situation invited by himself. His diligence, as he has addressed, is only a lame excuse, without support of positive conduct. Writing a letter to Police and subsequently attempting to show a medical certificate of so called illness, was not sufficient compliance of attendance. Notices of the Court were even not served by concerned Police on the ground that it was lost track of though accused claims 5 to have attended the Police on 15th August, 2009. 9. Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Counsel, invites my attention to two orders subsequent to 8th Oct.,2009, directing the Police to be diligent in apprehending the accused. However, Police have, according to him, failed in discharging their obligation. 10. In the situation, without further commenting to the demerits of the accused/applicant, the order dt.8th Oct.,2009, directing the accused/applicant to surrender, cannot be cancelled/withdrawn. The betrayal to Court process, fuelled the events, of conduct of the accused/applicant. Consequently, application is rejected. Criminal Application No. 2091/2009 will be heard immediately on surrender by accused. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/4446-09crapl