Raj Ganpatrao Gaikwad v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 / 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2017 Raj Ganpatrao Gaikwad .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Abhiman D. Patil, Advocate h/f Gajanan M. Savagave, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr.Deepak Thakrey, APP for the State/Respondent. CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2017.

P.C. :

1.

This application is moved for bail by the applicant/ accused. The applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 407, 467, 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, in C.R.No.36/16 dated 24/02/2016 of Karkamb Police Station, Taluka Pandarpur, District Solapur.

2.

At the outset the learned prosecutor rightly pointed out

2 / 3 the order passed by this Court dated 22/09/2016 wherein the learned counsel for the applicant/accused sought permission of this Court to withdraw the application with further liberty to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandharpur on 01/10/2016 and also made a statement that he would file an application for bail. Accordingly, the permission was granted and application was dismissed as withdrawn. Pursuant to that bail application was preferred by the applicant/accused on 27/09/2016 before learned J.M.F.C. Pandharpur. The learned Judge adjourned that matter from time to time. However, by order dated 23/11/2016 rejected the application for bail and specifically observed that though the applicant/accused was directed to appear before the Court he did not come before the Court. The learned Judge passed a reasoned order on 23/11/2016 and rejected the bail. It appears that thereafter on 14/12/2016 the learned Sessions Judge has also rejected the said application.

3.

The learned prosecutor submitted that the accused is

3 / 3 not arrested by the police and therefore bail application is not maintainable.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that applicant/accused be given liberty to surrender before the trial Court.

5.

I have perused the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and considered the submissions made by the learned prosecutor. It is the fact that the applicant/accused has never surrendered before the learned Magistrate and never arrested by the police and hence this application is not maintainable and therefore application is rejected.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)