Tushar Barku Salunke v. The State Of Maharashtra
Dond 1/2 APPLN.625-2016.sxw FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 625 OF 2016 Tushar Barku Salunke Vs. The State of Maharashtra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sudhir Halli for applicant.
Ms. J.S. Lohakare, APP for Sate.
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J.
DATE : 20th October 2016.
P.C.:
1) This is an application for extension of time for furnishing solvent surety. By an Order dated 23.9.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Greater Mumbai in Bail Application No.292 of 2016, the applicant was directed to be enlarged on bail. While releasing the applicant on bail, the learned Special Judge has directed that the applicant be released on bail on execution of PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. As the applicant could not get the solvent surety immediately, he preferred a Misc.Application No.157 of 2016 before the Special Curt for releasing him on cash bail till he furnishes surety. The learned Special Judge by its Order dated 29.9.2016 allowed the said application.
2) The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been released on cash bail on 30.9.2016. He submitted that while releasing the applicant on bail, the learned Special Judge was pleased to grant two weeks time
Dond 2/2 APPLN.625-2016.sxw for furnishing the solvent surety. The applicant thereafter submitted the documents of his father as surety.
3) It appears from the record that the necessary solvency certificate was not received by the father of the applicant within the stipulated period and therefore the applicant has filed Mis.Application No.167 of 2016 before the Special Court for extension of time. However, the said application is rejected by the impugned Order dated 14.10.2016 on the ground that on 29.9.2016 two weeks was already granted and inspite of the same the applicant failed to furnish suety. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as a matter of fact, the father of the applicant has now received solvency certificate and the process of furnishing solvency certificate may take about four weeks time. 4) In view of the above, the period to furnish solvent surety and to complete the process thereof is hereby extended by five weeks from today. It is however made clear that the said period will not be further extended on any count. 5) The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 6) All the concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Order. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)