jpc ba669-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 669 OF 2011 Yusuf Salim Noorani ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Pooja Bhojane, for the applicant Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State Mr. Nitin D. Utekar, Police Sub Inspector, D.C.B., CID Unit-II CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 7th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Ms. Bhojane, the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned, APP for the State. 2. The applicant was arrested on 15th April, 2010 on the allegation that he had committed the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal code. It is not in dispute that the applicant was released on bail by the learned Magistrate. The reason for his release on bail appears to be that the investigation was not completed within a period, stipulated by the proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whatever may be the reason, the fact that the applicant was granted bail, is accepted before me by the Investigating Officer, who is present in the Court. The applicant however, remained jpc ba669-11.sxw 2 in custody as he did not furnish surety in the bail amount. In the meantime, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The applicant made an application for bail to the Court of Sessions, which came to be rejected. The applicant is now seeking bail from this Court. 3. In the first place, it was not necessary for the applicant to seek bail on merits from the Court of Sessions. The bail was already granted to him by the Magistrate; and as it had not been cancelled by any Court, it was operative. The application for bail, made to the Court of Sessions, was a formal application and all that the Court of Sessions was required to see, was whether the applicant had already been ordered to be released on bail and if so, whether the bail order was in force. Instead of doing so, the learned Sessions Judge mentioned that since the matter may be disposed of without loss of time, the applicant should not be released on bail. 4. Since the applicant was already granted bail and since the bail had not been cancelled by any Court, the applicant should have been allowed to avail of the bail order which was already in his favour. The rejection of his application by the learned Sessions Judge, without taking this aspect into consideration, was not proper. 5. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. jpc ba669-11.sxw 3 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) with one surety in like amount. 6. Since the learned Sessions Judge has already indicated that the trial may be speedily held, the learned Sessions Judge is requested to expedite the same and complete it within a period of two months from the date receipt of this order. The learned Judge be requested to report compliance. 7. The application is allowed in the above terms. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)