SUSHIL SURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWED , subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of. Crl. M.C. No. 6719 of 2006 Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against three accused persons, namely, Anil Khandelwal, Sharad Raina and Sushil Suri, the petitioner herein. It appears that while dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking exemption, vide order dated 15.9.2006 dealt with the request of all the accused persons and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the averments made, by the petitioner in his application were not considered by the learned Judge. His submission is that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he had not sought exemption till the conclusion of the trial but till the evidence of the complainant is recorded. He further submits that in the application specific averment was made that the applicant shall not dispute his identity and shall be bound by the state ments made by his advocate and in view of the judgment in the case of Bhaskar Sen and others v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2004 (3) JCC 180 it is not necessary for the petitioner to appear personally for seeking bail. There appears to be some substance in the contention of the petitioner. Order dated 15.9.2006 qua the petitioner is accordingly set aside and the learned MM is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner afresh after hearing the counsel for the petitioner. The petition is disposed of.