Pratibha Rani, J.

Crl.M.A.No.10612/2013

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A. Nos.10609/2013 & 9287/2014 (preponement of hearing)

1. Appellant states that as the matter had been heard he does not press these two applications.

2. Both the applications are dismissed for having become infructuous and as not pressed.

Crl.M.A. No.10610/2013

1. The above captioned application has been filed by the appellant with the following prayer:

“to pass an appropriate order to the concerned police authority to take respondent No.2, 3 and 4 into custody by arresting them to uphold majesty of law, in the interest of justice.”

2. In the instant application, the petitioner after giving the facts of the two criminal cases, has also made reference to the civil suit wherein a decree has been passed in his favour but not executed.

3. The ground on which direction to take respondents No.2 to 4 in custody has been sought is on their alleged wilful disobedience to furnish the bail bond as directed by this Court on 18.02.2013 while granting leave to appeal.

4. Perusal of the proceedings reveal that on 18.02.2013 in Crl.L.P. No.329/2010, following order was passed:-

“This leave to appeal petition was dismissed by this Court on 16th September, 2010 against which order the Petitioner filed a Special Leave to Appeal petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 27th July, 2012 observed as under:-

‘Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

We are of the considered opinion that the High Court ought to have decided the matter on merit as the right of appeal became available to the complainant only after the new amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure which came into effect on 31.12.2009. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.9.2010 passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the appeal filed by the complainant is restored to its original number to be decided on merits by the High Court.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.’

Thus, the appeal is now required to be decided on merits. Leave is granted.

Petition is disposed of.

Crl.A. No…………../2013 (On registration, the appeal was numbered as Crl.A. No. 240/2013 i.e. the instant appeal.)

The Registry to number the appeal.

Admit.

List in due course.

During the pendency of hearing of the appeal, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 will furnish their respective personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks.”

5. On 17.07.2013 while passing order on Crl. M.A. No.10450/2013 for reduction of sureties, this Court modified the bail order dated 18.02.2013 by directing reduction of surety from two to one. The bail bonds thereafter have been furnished and accepted by the Registrar General.

6. Since the respondents No.2 to 4 herein were acquitted by learned Trial Court, while granting leave to appeal, the bail order was passed on 18.02.2013 which was subsequently modified on 17.07.2013.

7. The order granting bail stands complied with. Hence, the instant application deserves dismissal.

8. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Crl.M.A. No.10611/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.12540/2014

1. Both these applications have been taken up together for disposal as the prayers made in the two applications are identical i.e. for procuring presence of respondents No.2 to 4 herein for purpose of recovery of forged seals pertaining to FIR No.240/2002 PS Patel Nagar.

2. The prayer made in Crl.M.A. No.10611/2013 is to the following effect:-

“to direct the concerned police authority to recover the forged seals possession of which was repeatedly admitted by the accused persons through their learned counsel before ld. A.S.J. on 13.08.2002 and 16.08.2002 as its non-recovery alone had become a reason for their acquittal under