1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4156 OF 2009 Shri Bharatkumar Virajlal Jogi. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. H.E.Mooman for the applicant. Ms.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 21th April 2010. P.C. : Heard. Perused application. 2. By this application the applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.96/2002 registered with EOW, GB, CB, CID, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code rad with section s 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act, 1999. 3. This is a sixth application for bail at the instance of the present applicant. Prior to this, three 2 bail applications were rejected by this Court as detailed hereinbelow: 4. After having suffered adverse order at the hands of the Sessions Court dated 22nd April, 2008, the applicant had filed Criminal Application No.1462/2008 in this court to seek bail. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 6th May, 2008. Thereafter, the applicant again applied for bail before the Sessions Court which came to be rejected vide order dated 26th August, 2008. 5. After having suffered the aforesaid orders, this Court was again called upon to consider the bail application of the applicant being Criminal Application No.3683/2008, which was again rejected by an order dated 15th January, 2009 considering the fact that the police had received 94 complaints against the applicant and his family members of having committed economic offence involving Rs.91,76,688/-. The applicant was absconding for a period of six years. He was arrested on 16th April, 2008 in the present C.R. and, subsequently, chargesheet was filed against him before the trial Court. The applicant- accused tried to keep himself away from investigation for a period of six years. He was required to be declared as absconding. Proclamation was required to be issued against him. His properties were required to be seized. It was, thus, observed by this Court that looking to the conduct of the applicant- accused, the possibility of his jumping the bail could not be ruled out. All these factual 3 aspects prevailed over this Court resulting in rejection of bail application vide order dated 15th January, 2009. 6. One more bail application was moved by the applicant before this Court being Criminal Application No. 1867/2009. Since earlier bail applications moved by the applicant were rejected and no change in fact situation was brought on record, the said application also came to be rejected vide order dated 12th November, 2009. Now the applicant has again come with the present application for bail contending that the investigation is complete. That he is in custody for more than two years and if he is released on bail he would be able to repay the dues payable to the various creditors. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would stay with his brother and that he would report the police station every day or as may be ordered by this Court. This Court was, prima facie; impressed with the bonafides shown by the applicant trough his advocate appearing before this Court. The learned advocate was, thus, directed to supply the details of applicant’s brother with whom the applicant desired to stay so as to enable the investigating officer to carry out verification and find out credentials of his brother. The Investigating Officer was granted time to carry out verification. 8. Mr.Prakash Kolambkar, Senior Inspector of Police attached to Economic Offences Wing, Unit-VII, Crime 4 Branch, Mumbai has now filed an affidavit dated 13th April, 2010 stating therein that one P.S.I.- Mr.Gaikwad was deputed by him for carrying out verification. Accordingly, Mr.Gaikwad did visit the place of the applicant’s brother- Mr.Prataprai Brijlal Jogi with prior intimation on phone. According to his report, Mr.Pratapray Jogi was not found at his residence. His son Kapil was present. On being asked, he informed that his father was not available and refused to give details and show any documents as to the ownership of the premises. In the circumstances, considering hostile attitude of the family members of the applicant, learned A.P.P. has objected to grant bail and submitted that the applicant may not be available for trial. She also reiterates that the present applicant was absconding for a period of six years and even today his son is absconding for more than eight years. In spite of best efforts, the investigating agency could not find the whereabouts of the son of the applicant. 9. Learned A.P.P. orally informed that P.S.I.- Gaikwad had visited the place of brother of the applicant after informing the applicant’s brother on telephone that he would be visiting the place for verification. In spite of this intimation, his brother chose to remain absent. Applicant’s brother’s son did not co-operate. The attitude of the applicant’s brother and his family members does not appear to be congenial so as to accommodate the present applicant in their family or in their residence. For want of verification, looking to the past conduct of 5 the applicant, absence of any change in fact situation (after rejection of earlier applications) and taking into account the fact that the applicant was absconding for six years and his son is still absconding for past more than eight years, this application for bail, in my considered view, is liable to be rejected. 10. In the result application is rejected. (V.C.DAGA J.)