Sandip Jagannath Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And Anoter
2024:BHC-AUG:10462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1537 OF 2024 IN BA/652/2023 SANDIP JAGANNATH PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTER ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Hrishikesh V. Tungar APP for Respondent No.1 : Ms. D. S. Jape Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Y. H. Lagad ...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 10-06-2024 PER COURT :- 1.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2.
The brief history of the case is that the applicant was granted a conditional bail on 27.04.2023, on his proposal to return Rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant. Six months were granted to return the amount to complainant. He did not comply with the order within six months. The Court took a liberal view and extended further six months by order dated 24.04.2024 to comply with bail condition. However, the applicant again failed to comply with the order. Thereafter, he came for extension of time again before this Court. The conduct of the applicant must be noted that
he was playing tactics with the Court and the law. The applicant, on the last date of hearing at the fag end of the court hours, paid some amount. The matter was listed on the last but one day before the summer vacation. That day also, he did not comply with his bail conditions. On 08.05.2024, a statement was made that if he would not comply with the order by that day evening, bail may be cancelled. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 10.05.2024. It was the last working day before the summer vacation. That day also he did not comply with bail condition. Again, the Court took a lenient view and instead of passing any stringent order and adjourned the matter for today observing that in the meantime, the applicant would pay the amount if he could arrange. 3.
Today, again the applicant is playing same tune and seeking time, showing some demand draft dated 04.06.2024. However, it is not encashed. The overall conduct of the applicant shows that he does not obey the Court's order and wish to comply with the order as per his convenience. In the first session, his counsel requested for one day. In the second session, he is asking for two days to comply with the order. The law must be maintained. Everybody must respect the Court orders. One year was granted to comply with the bail condition. He is taking it for granted. He has lost the confidence of the Court. The Court cannot help the wrongdoer or a person, who does not obey the order of the Court. No one can take the benefit of the leniency of the Court. A wrong
message should not go to the society and everyone must maintain the dignity of court of law.
4.
For the above reasons, the application stands dismissed. 5.
The order granting conditional bail dated 27.04.2023 stands cancelled and his surety bonds also cancelled. 6.
The applicant should surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule tomorrow by 11.30 a.m. 7.
The learned Magistrate shall take the applicant in magisterial custody and send him to the prison.
( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE rrd