*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3325/2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3352/2009 Seema Rajkumar Basantani. ..Applicant in Cri.Apl.3325/09 Rajkumar Chainrai Basantani. ..Applicant in Cri.Apl.3352/09 -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr.Monish Bohra, Advocate i/b A.S.Khan and Associates, for the Applicants. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr.Gul Asranai, counsel for the C.B.I.. Mr.P.D.Desai a/w Mr.H.B.Gandhi, Advocates i/b Little & Company, for the Respondent No.2. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P., for the Respondent/State. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 05th August, 2009. PC:- 1 Heard. 2 The present Applicants are the husband and wife. The Applicant in Criminal Application No.3352/2009 is the Accused No. 2 whereas the Applicant in Criminal Application No.3325/2009 is the Accused No.3. The Respondent No.2 Andhra Bank filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure *2* wherein the process came to be issued against the accused under Sections 409, 420 r/w 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed on 14.12.2004 and the order of issuance of process was passed on 21.12.2005. As the process could not be served on the present Applicants, the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 herein moved an application under Section 65 for pesting of summons at the conspicuous place at the residence of the Applicants. In 2005 the summons was pasted on the last known address of the Applicants and submitted the report to the Court in that regard. In spite of effecting the substitute service, the Applicants did not appear before the Court. In November, 2005 the Respondent No.2 applied for issuance of non-bailable warrant, but the Court issued bailable warrant against both the Applicants. However, the bailable warrant could not be executed. Therefore, the Complainant made an application for issuance of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proclamation came to be issued against both the Applicants. At the time of execution of proclamation, the Applicants were not found at the given address. As the proclamation could not be executed the Applicants were declared as absconding. Hence, the Respondent No. 2 herein filed an application on 08.05.2006 for attachment of the property of the Accused. However, as a third party raised objection to the application for attachment of property, the said application came to be rejected. 3 Thereafter, in July, 2009 the Applicants appeared before the Trial Court and filed the applications for cancellation of non- bailable warrants. The Trial Court rejected the applications on *3* 14.07.2009 and in execution of the warrants the Applicants were arrested and sent to the judicial custody. The Applicants had also moved the bail applications on the same day, however, the same were rejected. Thereafter, the Applicants approached the Sessions Court for cancellation of warrants and for grant of bail. However, the Sessions Court rejected the same for the reason that the Applicants have failed to appear before the Trial Court over a long period of time from the year 2004 to 2009. Hence, the Applicants have moved the present applications for their release on bail. 4 According to the Applicants, they had gone abroad in the year 2004 and have returned to India only in November, 2008. The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants were at no point of time served with any summons or notice and were not aware of the pendency of complaint before the Magistrate. The present Applicants were not in India is a fact which is borne from the various orders passed in different proceedings. One such order is dated 01.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.359/2008. The said order clearly reveals that as the extradition proceedings were initiated the Applicants offered to come to India as they were accused in the cases filed by the C.B.I. as well as the cases filed under the MPID Act. The said order further reveals that passports of the present Applicants were revoked and hence, directions came to be issued to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi to issue Emergency Certificate in lieu of revoked passports for travel of the Applicants from U.S.A. to Mumbai. Thus, one way travel documents were issued and the Applicants have come to India in November, 2008. *4* The presence of the Applicants in the instant complaint can be secured by putting them to terms and conditions. 5 The learned counsel for the Applicants assures this Court that the Applicants will co-operate for expeditious disposal of the complaint pending on the file of the learned Magistrate. As non appearance of the Applicants in the complaint case was on account of their absence from India and as they were not aware of the pendency of the complaint, they are entitled to be released on bail. 6 Hence, I pass the following order:- (i) The Applicants shall be released on bail in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The cash deposit of the amount shall be permitted for a period of four weeks. (ii) The Applicants shall attend the Mira Road Police Station, Mumbai once a fortnight till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The Applicants shall furnish the present address of residence to the Respondents within a period of one week from today. (iv) The trial is expedited. (v) The Applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (A.P. Deshpande, J)