N. G. GOPALKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP for the Respondent No.1- State.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks part modification of the clause - 03] (a) of para 9 of the order dated 18 th January, 2018, passed by learned District Judge - 4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No.143 of 2010, inasmuch as, it directs the petitioner to furnish one solvent surety of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 78 year old senior citizen and is the father of the First Informant - Akshay. He submits that the petitioner's son - Akshay had filed an FIR/complaint as against the accused - Darappa Gangadhar Kale, for the offences punishable under Sections 454 , 457 , 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR/complaint was registered with the Hadapsar Police Station, Pune, vide C.R. No.399 of 2006. He submits that although the case is of the year 2006, there is no progress in the said case, inasmuch as, the accused - Darappa Kale is absconding after charge sheet was filed and has not been traced till date. He submits that despite the impugned order having been passed on 18th January, 2018, below an application filed by the petitioner seeking return of seized gold and silver ingots, of which theft was committed by Darappa Kale, the petitioner has not been able to secure the ingots, till date, as he is unable to furnish one solvent surety of Rs.1,00,000/-, as directed by the learned District Judge - 4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.