BA.No.12н2015
:1:
R.A.No.16н2015 in
Spl.Case No.18н2000
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I. FOR
GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.12 OF 2015
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2015
IN
SPECIAL CASE NO.18 OF 2000
Mr. Suresh Kamat
Age 51, R/o. R.No.206, Vijay Vikram
Society, Shardhagram Dahisar (E),
Mumbaiн68.

.. Applicant/Accused.

VERSUS
The State through CBI. ACB., Mumbai.

.. Respondent/Complainant.

Advocate Ms. Vidya Bagal @ Advocate Mr. Salunkhe for the
Applicant/Accused.
SPP. Ms. Patil for the State/Respondent.

Judge
CORAM : His Honour The Special
SHRI. N. K. MORE
DATE: 15 October, 2015.
(Court Room No.52)
th
ORDER
1.

Perused the application and say filed by the learned SPP.

2.

Heard the learned Advocates for the applicant/accused and
learned SPP.
3.

The learned Advocate for the accused submits that earlier the
accused was released on bail by this Court. Thereafter he was attending
BA.No.12н2015
:2:
R.A.No.16н2015 in
Spl.Case No.18н2000
the Court regularly. However, the Advocate on record did not inform
about the date of hearing. Meanwhile the accused had to go to London.
The accused went to London by adopting due procedure of law. He did
not intentionally remained absent in the Court. She submits that no
purpose will be solved if the accused is kept in judicial custody. She is
ready to expedite the hearing of the case. She submits that accused is
ready to abide by the terms and conditions if any put by the Court.
4.

On the other hand, the learned SPP submits that the accused
remained absent since 2004.

The bailable warrant, non bailable
warrant and proclamation issued by the court, but his presence could
not be secured. She submits that the family members of the accused
were aware about the non bailable warrant issued against the accused
and despite this fact, the accused remained absent. She submits that
the condition was laid in earlier bail order that the accused shall not
leave India without permission of the Court, but the accused committed
breach of condition.
5.

Considering the submissions of the learned Advocate for the
accused and the learned SPP and on going through the roznama of the
record and proceedings, I hold that the bail application is deserved to be
rejected, because the accused is absent in the court since 2004. The
bailable warrant and non bailable warrant were issued against the
accused from time to time, but his presence could not be secured. So
lastly the proclamation order was issued by the Court.
6.

Moreover, while releasing the accused on bail one of the
conditions was that he should not leave India without the permission of
BA.No.12н2015
:3:
R.A.No.16н2015 in
Spl.Case No.18н2000
the Court. The accused committed the breach of said conditions and
went to London. Due to the absence of the accused the hearing of the
case was held up. So his case was splited up and trial was proceeded
against rest of the accused. The accused has not putнforth just and
reasonable ground about his absence in the Court. So considering all
these facts, I proceed to pass the following order.
Order
Bail Application No.12 of 2015 stands rejected.
Bail Application No.12 of 2015 in Remand Application No.16 of
2015 in Special CBI.Case No.18 of 2000 stands disposed of.

15.10.2015
Dictated on
: 15.10.2015
Typed on
: 16.10.2015
Signed by HHJ. : 16.10.2015
(N.K.More)
Special Judge for C.B.I.
Greater Bombay.

BA.No.12н2015
:4:
R.A.No.16н2015 in
Spl.Case No.18н2000
” I affirm that the contents of the PDF file judgment/order are
the same, word to word, as per the original judgment.”
Name of Steno with post :н Mrs. Pradnya Sandeep Naik
(Stenographer Higher Grade)
Name of the Judge (with Court No.) :н Shri. N.K. More (CR.No.52)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order :н 15.10.2015
Judgment signed by the P.O. on :н 16.10.2015
Judgment uploaded on :н