MAHESH PUNDALIK KENE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner came to be arrested in connection with offence under section 398 of the I.P.C. and section 25(i)(c) of the Arms Act in C.A. No.I-43 of 1995 registered by Dombivali Police Station, District Thane. Thereafter he applied for grant of bail to this Court on his application being rejected by the Sessions Court Thane and this Court (Sahai, J) directed release of the petitioner in Criminal Application No.1143 of 1995 by imposing certain conditions one of which was reporting to Dombivali Police Station thrice every week for the initial period of six months and thereafter once in a week. The petitioner committed breach of the condition of reporting to the police station and therefore the State filed Criminal Application No.320 of 1996 in this Court. Inspite of service of notice of that application, the petitioner remained absent and, therefore, by order dated 20.7.1996 I had cancelled bail granted in favour of the petitioner and directed the Sessions Court, Thane to cause him re-arrested and commit to prison. Accordingly, petitioner came to be arrested in January 1997 and has been in custody at Thane.

(2.) THIS application is now filed for grant of bail by the petitioner and it is stated therein that the petitioner is working with one company known as Sindhu Darshan Dredgers Pvt. Ltd. for collecting sand and due to his arrest in this crime, he was absent from duty for four months and was about to lose his job. His place of work was off shore and, therefore, he could not report to the police station. That is how it is stated that he could not report to the police station because of the aforesaid facts and now he is ready to abide by all the conditions that may be put against him. Mr.Mirza, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the application. He contended that there are other cases pending against the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice by this Court in connection with cancellation of bail, the petitioner did not remain present and under the circumstances this is not a case where the petitioner should be readmitted to bail.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the application is disposed of.