Fazal Khalil Ahemad Shaikh vs Nandkishor S/O. Ramnivasji ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 82 Bom

                                                                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

902-CrRn-323-19

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.

902-CrRn-323-19

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