Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Rajendra Shantilal Nahar on 4 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)MHLJ555
Author: B.H. Marlapalle
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle
JUDGMENT B.H. Marlapalle, J.
1. Heard. Rule.
Shri Girme waives service for respondent. Reply has been filed. Parties have argued at length. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11-2-2002 passed below Exhibits 8, 9 and 14 in Special Case No. 1 of 2002 releasing the three accused on bail by Special Judge, Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 at Nasik, the State Government initially had filed Criminal Revision Application No. 138 of 2002 and subsequently as per the leave granted by this Court vide order dated 27-11-2003, it was converted into a Criminal Application revoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of the bail granted to accused No. 1 Rajendra Shantilal Nahar. Before I proceed to discuss the rival contentions, the case of the prosecution requires to be set out in brief.
3. Rajendra s/o Shantilal Nahar, a resident of Ahmednagar town started Nahar Tobacco Industries Limited sometimes in 1999 with other three persons viz. Sanjay Satyanarayan Agarwal, resident of Nagpur, Jaikishan Munnalal Karva, resident of Hyderabad and Mahesh Baheti, also a resident of Hyderabad. They proposed to start a factory at Ghodegaon, a place close to Ahmednagar town for the manufacture of guthka and Rajendra Nahar was responsible for production activities, Sanjay Agarwal was responsible for supply of raw material, Jaikishan was responsible for marketing in the Southern State and Mahesh Baheti was responsible for the accounting functions. Within six to seven months, the business collapsed due to heavy losses and it is the case of the Police that some of these persons turned towards a more lucrative business of circulating counterfeit notes in the market. It is alleged that sometimes in February 2000, through the contacts of Sanjay Agarwal, Rajendra Nahar met Prakash alias Pradeep Saklecha of Pune and it was agreed that this Pradeep Bhai would supply fake currency notes through Bharat Saklecha and in return, the accused No.1 would give 50% to 60% of the value of the fake currency notes in the form of valid currency notes. The first parcel that the accused No. 1 received was of Rs. 2,87,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 100/- through Bharat Saklecha, the second one of Rs. 2,00,500/-. Thereafter, the business activities flourished and the accused No. 1 received Rs. 5,00,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 500/- each at Radhika Hotel, Nana Peth, Pune, Rs. 7,00,000/- at Subhadra Hotel Jangli Maharaj Road, Pune and through the international contacts, Rajendra Nahar then received Rs. 5,00,000/- near the Railway Station, Pune, Rs. 10,00,000/- near Swagat Hotel, Railway Station, Pune, Rs. 8,00,000/- near Rahul Restaurant and Bar, Shivaji Nagar, Pune and Rs. 7,00,000/- near Rahul Theatre, Shivaji Nagar in the month of May and June 2001. It is the case of the Police that this Rajendra Nahar opened simultaneously, two Bank Accounts, one with the Burudgaon Road Branch of the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited and the other one with Dwarkadas Mantri Nagari Sahakari Bank, Market Yard Branch, Ahmednagar and he went on depositing these fake currency notes. On or about 21st June 2001, the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited received from accused No. 1, a deposit in cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- or more and this money was, in turn by the said Bank, remitted to the Treasury Bank i.e. State Bank of India at Ahmednagar, all in the currency notes of Rs. 500/-. The Receiving Officer with the State Bank of India suspected that all these 2000 notes amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- were doubtful and, therefore, a group of Officers met the Assistant General manager of the said Bank on 25th June 2001 and described the whole episode. The said Assistant General Manager Shri Ashok Pandit, instead of filing an FIR, alerted the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited and asked his subordinates to record the statements of the employees of the said Bank. In addition, he referred all these 2000 currency notes to the Police who, in turn, forwarded these notes to the Government of India Security Press at Nasik wherefrom he received a Report on or about 6th July 2001 stating that out of these 2000 notes, 1950 were fake and thus an FIR came to be registered with the Bhingar Camp Police Station at Ahmednagar on 7th July 2001.
4. The Police then swung in action and in the course of investigation, it recorded statements of the Cashier, Accountant, Branch Manager of the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank and some Officers from the State Bank of India, Ahmednagar. It appears that on 25th June 2001, when Shri Ashok Pandit, the complainant, alerted the Manager of Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited he, in turn, called upon the accused No. 1 and the accused addressed a letter immediately on the same day to the Branch Manager of Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited, Burudgaon Road Branch. The statement of Shri Bharat Saklecha was also recorded on 24-9-2001. After the news regarding the arrest of seven accused was published in the local news papers, three persons viz. Dattatraya Asaram Jagtap, resident of Gajanand Colony, Nagapur, Taluka and District Ahmednagar and Nandu Bajirao Baraskar, resident of Ahmednagar as well as Anil Lakshman Mhaske, resident of Ahmednagar approached the Police and disclosed that they had received some amounts towards the repayment of debt from accused No. 2 and all this cash was paid to them in the form of currency notes of Rs. 500/-. These statements were recorded on 2-10-2001 and the currency notes deposited by these complainants were also referred to the Currency Note Press at Nasik. The Report received by the Police on or about 29-10-2001 indicated that all these notes were fake. Shri Jagtap had handed over 21 notes and Shri Baraskar and Mhaske had also handed over the same number of currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-.
5. Out of the 7 accused, 4 were released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar before the charge sheet was filed. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who were not released on bail, filed application for the same purpose on or about 14/16 January 2002 and they came to be listed as Exhibits 8, 14 and 9 respectively. Accused No. 1 was taken in custody on 14-7-2001, accused No. 2 was taken in custody on 18-6-2001 and accused No. 3 Shashikant Vohra was taken in custody on 16-7-2001. The investigation with reference to the first date of arrest i.e. 11-7-2001 was to be completed within 90 days and as the same was not completed, an application was made for extension of the remand on 11-10-2001. The same was granted by order dated 12-10-2001 by the learned Special Judge before whom the charge sheet was filed on 9-1-2002. In fact, before the charge sheet was filed, the three unreleased accused had also submitted three separate applications for bail before the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar and on or about 10th January 2002, when it was pointed out that the charge sheet was already filed before the special Court at Nasik, these applications came to be filed without any effective order and thus, the accused filed their fresh bail applications before the Special Court.
6. The learned Prosecutor, in support of his challenge to the order dated 11-2-2002 submitted that the findings recorded by the Special Court are contrary to the evidence that was made available in the course of investigation and the said evidence indicated that it was accused No. 1 who was the main person involved in the racket of counterfeit currency notes being circulated in the market and it was he who had deposited the said amount with the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited. The findings recorded by the Special Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence available and placed along with the charge sheet. Initially, the impugned order was challenged by way of a Criminal Revision Application and with the leave of this Court, the same has been amended.
7. Shri Girme, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused No. 1 has at the threshold taken exception to the order dated 27th January 2003 passed by this Court allowing the amendment and subsequently submitted that there is no ground made out by the State for cancellation of bail validly granted by the Special Court. There is nothing to indicate that any of the accused, leave alone accused No. 1, has violated or abused the conditions of the bail nor have they been found, even prima facie, guilty of tampering with the investigation of evidence. In his Affidavit-in-reply opposing this application filed by the State, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the following decisions : (1) Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 Cri.L.J. Page 160, (2) Aslam Desai v. State, , and (3) Daulatram v. State, . He urged before this Court to reject the application.
8. So far as the issue of allowing the amendment is concerned, the order dated 27-11-2003 was passed so as to convert the Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code into a Criminal Application under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well established that an order allowing or rejecting the application of bail in a pending case for trial is an interlocutory order and, therefore, a Revision Application under Section 397(1) would not lie in view of the bar of Sub-section (2) of Section 397. It is also noted from the record that the Special Prosecutor who has been appointed by the State of Maharashtra in Special Case No. 1 of 2002 had recommended to the State Government to challenge the order dated 11-2-2002, by filing appropriate proceedings before this Court. In his proposal, he has not stated that the said order should to be challenged by filing a Criminal Revision Application. It appears that while the Resolution was being issued by the State Government in the department of Law and Judiciary, this recommendation of filing a Criminal Revision Application under Section 397(1) was incorporated. Even otherwise, an application for amendment, is required to be allowed so that miscarriage of justice, if any, is avoided. The objection to, the amendment so taken on behalf of the accused No. 1 is, therefore, unsustainable, more so in view of the decision in the case of Krishnan v. Krishmaveni, .
9. Coming to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused opposing this application on the ground that no case has been made out to cancel the bail on account of the behaviour of the accused are well merited and the law in that regard is well settled. However, the thrust of the challenge to the order dated 11-2-2002 is on the basis that it is a perverse order and contrary to the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 [hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as "MCOC Act 1999"]. There is no dispute that the parameters for cancellation of bail, as set out in the decision of Aslam Desai (supra) are not applicable in the instant case. Nonetheless, in the said case, the Apex Court also put a caveat that the grounds set out therein are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The learned Prosecutor was right in his submissions that apart from the grounds which are set out in Aslam's case, the order granting bail can also be set aside by this Court under its inherent powers if such an order is found to be perverse. These submissions find support in the following decisions: (1) Puran v. Rambilas and Anr., 2001 Cr.L.J. 2566 and (2) Ramgovind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Shah and Ors., 2002 Cr.L.J. 1849. In the case of Puran (supra), the offences registered were punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Bail was granted by the Sessions Court on 30-11-2000 in favour of some of the accused and this order came to be challenged before this Court. By order dated 24-1-2001, the bail order was cancelled. The Apex Court, while upholding the decision of this Court in Para 9 and 10 observed thus :
"9. ............... One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected.
10. Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal and perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation ...."
In the case of Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 it has been held that under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the approach should be whether the order granting bail was vitiated by any serious infirmity for which it was right and proper for the High Court, in the interest of justice, to interfere. Whereas, in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay (supra), the Apex Court stated thus :
"Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order -- but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course, order for bail, bereft of any cogent reasons, cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered, but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic consideration for the grant of bail more heinous is a crime, the greater is the change of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.
Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though, however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The consideration being:
(a) While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind, not only the nature of accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail."
10. Now coming to the case at hand, undoubtedly, the applications of bail are covered by the provisions of Section 21 of the MCOC Act, 1999. Sub-section (3) thereunder states that the provisions of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence punishable under the Act. Subsections (4) to (6) of Section 21, which are relevant for the present purposes, need to be reproduced as under:
"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond, unless --
(a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of such release; and
(b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the accused shall not be granted bail if it is noticed by the Court that he was on bail in an offence under this Act, or under any other Act, on the date of the offence in question.
(6) The limitations on granting of bail specified in Sub-section (4) are in addition to the limitations under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on the granting of bail."
11. Before the Court below, the accused had raised three grounds for being released on bail:
(a) Indefeasible right as available under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
(b) There was no evidence to connect any of them with the alleged offence, and
(c) Parity inasmuch as the other four accused were already released on bail by the Sessions Court.
On the first point, the Special Court itself has recorded that the remand was extended beyond 90 days and the charge sheet came to be filed on 9-1-2002 before the extended remand period expired. The bail applications which the accused had filed before the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar were not pressed after the counsel for the accused were informed that the charge sheets have already been filed and, therefore, these applications came to be filed in file as if they were not pressed for. Fresh applications were filed only on or about 14th or 16th January 2002 i.e. after the charge sheet was filed. It is well established position in law by now that the indefeasible right available to the accused for being released on expiry of 60 or 90 days is not available automatically and for exercising such a right, an application is required to be made with an offer to comply with the conditions of bail and such an application must be made before the charge sheet is filed. If the application was made before the charge sheet was filed and even if it remained to be undecided by the time the charge sheet was filed; it is now well settled that the said application has to be decided and the benefit is required to be given to the accused. Such is not the case at hand. The charge sheet has been filed on 9-1-2002 and the bail applications were filed thereafter and, therefore, the accused were not entitled to invoke the indefeasible right available under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Coming to the second plea, the Court below has answered in the affirmative by holding that:
"So, a perusal of the statement of account of Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank shows that the accused Rajendra Nahar has done several transactions during the abovesaid period. So, it cannot be said that the fake notes were deposited by Rajendra Nahar in, Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank."
12. The learned Judge of the Special Court recorded a finding that none of the three accused could be connected with the offence and there was no prima facie evidence on record. When his attention was invited to the letter addressed by the accused No. 1 to the Branch Manager of the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank on 25-6-2001 the learned Judge observed that the said letter was submitted much prior to the filing of the FIR it could not be presumed on the basis of the said letter that accused No. 1, 2 and 3 were having a direct role in circulating the fake currency notes. The learned counsel for the accused, while referring to the letter dated 25-6-2001 submitted that it has no value for considering prima facie evidence to link the accused with the alleged offence. Undoubtedly, the letter has been signed by the accused. It has been addressed to the Branch Manager of the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited and not to any Police Officer. It has been inwarded by the Bank on the same day and it gives the details of the deposits made by the accused No. 1 in his Account [i.e. A/C. No. 1318] from 8-5-2001 to 25-6-2001. It would be appropriate to reproduce these deposit transactions date-wise and the total amount deposited with a separate column of 500 currency notes and number as well as their amount.
Date Total amount deposited No.of Rs. 500/-fake currency notes deposited.
Amount deposited under the fake notes.
8-5-2001 50,000.00 50 25,000.00 11-5-2001 2,45,000.00 170 85,000.00 16-5-2001 80,000.00 60 30,000.00 18-5-2001 1,00,000.00 70 35,000.00 22-5-2001 1,45,000.00 200 1,00,000.00 23-5-2001 1,24,500.00 152 76,000.00 26-5-2001 6,00,000.00 900 4,50,000.00 30-5-2001 2,20,000.00 200 1,00,000.00 1-6-2001 4,90,000.00 800 4,00,000.00 6-6-2001 6,00,000.00 700 3,50,000.00 13-6-2001 2,50,000.00 500 2,50,000.00 25-6-2001 6,70,000.00 1000 5.00,000.00 In the said statement, he admitted that from 8-5-2001 to 25-6-2001, he deposited a total amount of Rs. 25,51,000/-, all in cash. He also stated that if any of the Rs. 500/- notes deposited by him in the said amount was found to be fake, he would be fully responsible for the same and he will accept the responsibility to make good the damage that may be caused to the Bank. The Report received from the Currency Note Press of the Government of India indicated that out of 2000 notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- sent by the Police, 1950 were found to be fake. In addition, 21 such notes handed over by Jagtap and other 21 such notes handed over by Shri Nandu Baraskar and Anil Mhaske were found to be as per the Report received from the said Press. This letter dated 25-6-2001 was given by the accused No. 1 himself when he was called upon by the Branch Manager of the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited after he was alerted by the complainant Shri Ashok Pandit on the same day and, therefore, the view taken by the Court below that this letter cannot be relied upon is patently erroneous. There is no doubt that it would be a matter of evidence to prove all the investigation reports during the course of trial, but considering the prima facie evidence to decide an application of bail and that too with the restrictions as are set out in the scheme of Section 21 of the MCOC Act, it was not permissible for the Court below to discard this letter which has been signed by the accused himself and submitted to the Bank where he had deposited the currency notes. The extract of the said Bank Account was also before the Special Court. A perusal of the same indicates that from 9-5-2001 onwards, the deposits in cash increased drastically and from 5-7-2000 till 8-5-2001 i.e. for almost one year, there was hardly any deposit in this Account. In fact, there was no cash deposit and there were 5 debits by transfer i.e. Rs. 11,700/- on 18-7-2000, Rs. 29/- on 25-5-2000, Rs. 149/- on 22-9-2000, Rs. 10/- on 10-10-2000, Rs. 169/- on 24-10-2000 and Rs. 10/- on 29-3-2001. It is also relevant to note that the deposits, which were made from 9-5-2001 onwards were subsequently transferred by issuing cheques, either on the same day or within a short period. The prosecution alleges that accused No. 1 had opened Account No. 1400298 with the Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and the extract of the said Account for the period from 5-3-2001 to 1-6-2001 is one of the accompaniments to the charge sheet. Some of the cheques, which have been cleared by the Ahmednagar Shahar Sahakari Bank Limited, are deposited in this Account which was opened in the name of Rajendra Shantilal Jain and these deposits have been subsequently withdrawn in cash. It has come in the investigation papers that the accused were required to pay either 50% or 60% of the face value by way of actual currency whenever they were receiving these fake currency notes. If the accused had received an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in terms of these fake currency notes, they were, in turn, paying genuine currency to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 6,00,000/- and prima facie, it appears that these withdrawals from the Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank Limited at Ahmednagar provided a link in the chain of investigation. The statements of Shri Jagtap and Shri Mhaske as well as Baraskar could not be discarded even prima facie because the currency notes of Rs. 500/- denominations which they submitted to the Police were sent to the Currency Note Press and the Report received from the said Press indicated that they were fake. These three persons clearly stated that each one of them had received 50 notes of Rs. 500/-denominations from the accused No. 3 i.e. Popat Surana.
13. Now coming to the third ground of parity, it is not known whether the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, releasing the four accused on bail, was placed before the Special Judge. However, the involvement of the present accused which, prima facie, appears to be from the investigation papers in the offence cannot be compared with the allegations made against the said four accused for being released on bail and thus even the principle of parity was not applicable for the present accused being released on bail. The impugned Order thus fails on all accounts and it is manifestly perverse and erroneous order which has been passed in total disregard to the material in the form of investigation reports being available as accompaniments to the charge sheet. The order thus calls for interference at the hands of this Court.
14. The charge of obtaining and circulating fake currency notes is nothing short of waging a war against the Nation from inside and this economic offence hits at the very root of the economy of this Nation. No leniency is required to be shown by the Criminal Law Justice System to such accused. The rights of such an accused for being released on bail, or, for that matter, the protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must yield to the National Interest. In the case Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 210, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court has considered the same issues and observed that (para 57, on page 238):
"(a) the object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty by the Executive, save in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof. It is, therefore, imperative that before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty, the procedure established by law must strictly be followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected;
(b) on account of liberal interpretation of the words "life" and "liberty" in Article 21, the said Article has now come to be invoked almost as a residuary right even to an extent, which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution never dreamt of; and
(c) in our considered opinion, it would be a misplaced sympathy of the Court on such white- collared accused persons whose acts of commission and omission has (sic, have) ruined a vast majority of poor citizens of this country."
15. Before parting with this Order, it must be noted that by order dated 9-1-2002 issued by the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government of Maharashtra Shri Shridhar Pandurang Mane came to be appointed as a Special Prosecutor in Special Case No. 1 of 2002 and it is clear from the impugned order that no reply was filed opposing the bail applications at Exhibits 8, 9 and 14 by the Prosecutor, in spite of notice from the Special Court and this is required to be noted in view of the scheme of Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act, 1999. The impugned order was passed on 11-2-2002 and the instant application was filed in the Registry of this Court on 1-4-2002. It appeared for admission for the first time on 2-12-2002 i.e. after about 8 months. The Resolution dated 16-3-2002 signed by the Under Secretary to the Government in the Department of Law and Judiciary required filing of a Criminal Revision Application in this Court under Section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the impugned order, though the proposal submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor only recommended that the State Government should proceed against the Order dated 11-2-2002. The cause of action that resulted into passing of the above impugned order of bail originated in Ahmednagar City and the investigation was carried out by the CID at Aurangabad. Though the Special Court is located at Nasik, the bail Order dated 11-2-2002 was required to be challenged before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court. It is well known that the College Tribunal and the School Tribunal for Ahmednagar District are located at Pune and the orders passed by these Tribunals in any of the Appeals/Petitions originating from Ahmednagar District are challenged before the Aurangabad Bench. All these issues are required to be investigated into so as to avoid any recurrence of such instances which demonstrate nothing short of a casual approach on the part of the State Government in such serious, cases of economic offences.
16. In the premises, the impugned order dated 11-2-2002 passed on Exhibit 8 to the extent of accused No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed that his bail, so granted, shall stand cancelled forthwith and he shall surrender to the Police immediately. The trial of the main case is expedited and as far as possible, it may be completed on day-to-day basis.
The application is allowed and Rule is made absolute accordingly.
17. A copy of this Order be forwarded to the learned Advocate General of Maharashtra , Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department and Director of Prosecution, Government of Maharashtra for enquiring into the lapses as have been noted in this order.
18. At this stage, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted an oral application for stay of this order for a period of four weeks so as to give him time to challenge the same. The oral application is hereby rejected.
19. Certified copy, on application, be issued on priority.
20. R and P to be returned forthwith.