902-CrRn-323-19
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.323 OF 2019
FAZAL KHALIL AHEMAD SHAIKH
VERSUS
NANDKISHOR S/O. RAMNIVASJI AGRAWAL AND ANR
Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for applicant;
Mr. P. M. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.1;
Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent no.2
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 3rd JANUARY, 2023 P.C.
1. By order dated 12.06.2020, the applicant was directed to be released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each. He was directed to furnish bail before the first appellate Court.
2. Since 2020 the matter remained pending. Respondent no.1 who is 80 years old is complaining that the applicant is not responding to the Court orders.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant was seeking time again and again to make a statement whether the applicant has furnished surety bonds as per the order of this Court. Since he had no instructions, the report was called from the Additional Sessions Judge-4, Latur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge informed that ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 23:10:50 ::: 902-CrRn-323-19 (2) a notice was issued to the applicant for compliance of the order of this Court. However, it was returned back with a report that the house of the applicant was locked and his mother had refused to accept the notice. A candid report has been submitted that the applicant did not furnish bail as per the order of this Court, dated 12.06.2020. Even after having such concrete report, the learned counsel for the applicant is seeking time to verify why he did not furnish bail. From his statement, it appears that the applicant is not in his contact. In such circumstances, it would be very difficult for a lawyer appearing for such applicant to make any concrete statement and protect his interest.
4. The conduct of the applicant reveals that he did not regard the Court orders. He is taking the Court order as if granted. The matter is pending since 2019. It was a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The transaction is of year 2009 and there are two concurrent judgments against the applicant.
5. Having regard to the conduct of the applicant, it would be inappropriate to consider him once again to hear why he did not furnish bail bonds. The impugned order must be obeyed strictly, otherwise it would not pass a good message in the society. On the above facts, the order suspending the corporal sentence, dated 12.06.2020 stands withdrawn.
::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 23:10:50 :::
902-CrRn-323-19 (3)
6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Latur is directed to issue conviction warrant against the applicant forthwith. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Latur.
7. Stand over to 18.01.2023 for final hearing.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) amj ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 23:10:50 :::