(1.) THE petitioners are accused nos. 7 and 8. The offences against the petitioners are registered with the Economic Offences wing, Mumbai. They were arrested. The petitioners were charged with sections 120-B, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian penal Code. The learned Magistrate declined to grant the bail. The petitioners applied before the sessions Court for grant of bail. The learned special Judge by order dated 7th February, 2009 granted bail in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were ordered to be released on bail on executing a P. R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/-each with solvent surety in the like amount within three weeks. It was directed that in the meanwhile the petitioners shall be released on cash bail of Rs. 25,000/- each. Accordingly, cash bail was furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners applied for modification of bail order. By order dated 24th February, 2009, the learned special Judge declined to grant prayer for reducing the amount of surety to Rs. 15,000/-each from Rs. 50,000/- each and for permitting ordinary surety instead of solvent surety. The learned Special Judge also rejected the prayer made in the alternative for reducing the amount of surety to Rs. 21,000/- and for permitting three persons to jointly act as ordinary sureties of rs. 7,000/- each. However, the learned Special judge extended the time to furnish the solvent surety. Thereafter, the petitioners made another application being Miscellaneous Application no. 498 of 2009 for extension of time and for a direction to the learned Magistrate to accept surety. The said application was partly allowed by order dated 16th March, 2009. The learned special Judge granted ten days time for furnishing the surety. The learned Judge observed that the petitioner is permitted to furnish one or two sureties. It will be necessary to refer to what is observed by the learned Judge in paragraph 3 of the said order which read thus :-
(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioners filed surety application on the basis of the order dated 16th March, 2009. However, the Trial Court did not accept the surety. Therefore, the petitioner was again forced to approach the learned Special Judge. On 23rd March, 2009, the learned Special Judge passed following order:-
(3.) THE petitioners had to apply for extension of time to furnish surety. On 30th march, 2009 the learned Special Judge extended the time to furnish the surety by eight days. On 31st March, 2009 the petitioner no. 2 furnished two sureties before the Court of learned metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court. The learned Judge did not accept the same on the ground that they were not solvent sureties. In view of the said order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioners were required to file miscellaneous Application No. 597 of 2009 before the learned Special Judge. The prayer in the said application was for issuing a direction to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for accepting the ordinary sureties. A contention was raised that in view of the order dated 16th march, 2009 passed on Miscellaneous application No. 598 of 2009, the applicants be permitted to furnish ordinary sureties. By the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2009 the learned Special Judge rejected the said miscellaneous Application No. 597 of 2009.