BA.No.16н15
:1:
RA.No.16н15/Spl.18н2000
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I. FOR
GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2015
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2015
IN
SPECIAL CASE NO.18 OF 2000
(RC.No.45(A)/97)
Mr. Suresh M. Kamat
Age 51 years, Occ.н Service,
R/o. Room No.206, Vijay Vikram
Society, Shardhagram, Dahisar
(East), Mumbaiн 400 068.

.. Applicant/Accused No.1
VERSUS
The State (at the instance of CBI/ACB/
Mumbai.)

.. Respondent.

Advocate Mrs. Bagal for the Applicant.
SPP Ms. Patil for the CBI.
CORAM : His Honour The Special Judge
SHRI. N. K. MORE
nd
DATE : 2 November, 2015.
(Court Room No.52)
ORDER
1.

This is an application for bail filed by the accused u/s.437 of
Cr.P.C.
2.

Perused the application and say filed by the learned SPP.

3.

Heard the learned Advocate for the accused and learned SPP.

BA.No.16н15
4.

:2:
RA.No.16н15/Spl.18н2000
The learned Advocate for the accused submits that though the
earlier bail application No.12 of 15 filed by the present accused came to
be rejected, the accused is entitled to be released on bail, due the
change of circumstances. She submits that the accused was released on
bail by the Court and thereafter, he used to remain present before the
Court. However, the Advocate on record did not give the information to
the accused about the hearing of date, so he could not attend the court.
She submits that it will take longer time for conclusion of the trial,
considering the number of documents and witnesses involved in the
case. So according to her, it is not justified to keep the accused in the
judicial custody for unlimited period. The presence of the accused can
be secured by impounding his passport and directing him to furnish
bank guarantee for his attendance in the Court. She submits that the
mother of the accused is suffering from aliment. So on the humanity
ground also the accused is entitled to be released on bail.
5.

On the other hand, the learned SPP submits that the application
filed by the accused for bail is not maintainable, since there is no
change of circumstances. The application bearing No.12 of 2005 filed
by the accused for bail was decided by the court on merit. The accused
was absconding and due to his absence, the court had to split up his
case from rest of the accused. He committed breach of condition of
earlier bail order.

If the accused is released on bail, there is every
possibility of absconding the accused again.
6.

Considering the submissions of the learned Advocate for the
applicant/accused and the learned SPP and considering the facts of the
case, I hold that the application is deserved to be rejected because bail
BA.No.16н15
:3:
RA.No.16н15/Spl.18н2000
application No.12 of 2015 filed by the present accused is decided on
merits by taking into consideration the facts that the accused remained
absent in the court since 2004.

The bailable warrant, non bailable
warrant even proclamation issued by the court from time to time, but
the presence of the accused could not be secured and considering this
fact his case was split up from rest of the accused and the trial against
the rest of the accused was started. It is also pertinent to note that the
accused committed the breach of condition of the earlier bail order
because while releasing the accused on bail there was one of the
conditions that the accused should not leave the India without the
permission of the court, but the facts are that the accused left India
without the permission of the court.

So there is substance in the
contention of the learned SPP that if the accused is released on bail
there is every possibility of absconding the accused. The accused has
not put forth any ground or change of circumstances by way of this
application to secure the bail order in his favour. So considering this
fact, I hold that the application is deserved to be rejected. In the result,
I proceed to pass the following order.
Order
1.

Bail Application No.16 of 2015 is rejected.

2.

Bail Application No.16 of 2015 stands disposed of.

02.11.2015
Dictated on
: 02.11.2015
Typed on
: 03.11.2015
Signed by HHJ. : 03.11.2015
(N.K.More)
Special Judge for C.B.I.
Greater Bombay.

BA.No.16н15
:4:
RA.No.16н15/Spl.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 02.11.2015
Judgment/Order signed by the P.O. on :н 03.11.2015
Judgment/Order uploaded on :н 6.11.2015