1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4708 OF 2009 Ajay Dayaram Shenvekar ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr. Prathamesh Gokhale, for the Applicant. Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 12th March 2010 P.C. 1. By this application, the applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondent nos.2 to 4 by an order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the Sessions Court. 2. Smt. Archna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was married to Shri Prashant Harischandra Kumbhar on 24.5.2005. She committed suicide by hanging herself to a ceiling fan on 8.7.2009. A F.I.R. was filed by the brother of the deceased. During the course of investigation Mr. Prashant Kumbhar was arrested. So also were his mother, sister and a neighbour. The respondent nos.2 to 4 are the 2 mother, sister and the neighbour respectively. Mr. Prashant and the respondent nos.2 to 4 had applied for bail. By an order dated 6.10.2009, Mr.Prashant was rejected bail while the bail was granted to the respondent nos.2 to 4. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that bail ought not to have granted to the respondents 2 to 4 as the Investigating Officer did not have sufficient time for carrying out the investigation. I am unable to agree. The suicide was committed on 8.7.2009 and the respondent nos.2 to 4 were arrested some time in September 2009 and bail was granted on 6.10.2009. Therefore, it cannot be stated that sufficient time was not granted to the Investigating Officer for carrying out the investigation 4. In the case of Daulatram Vs. The State of Hariyana. (1995) I SCC 349, the Supreme Court has drawn distinction between the initial order of rejection of bail and the order of cancellation of bail. Bail once granted by the competent court can be cancelled only on the grounds that the accused had misused the liberty granted, that is to say where the accused tries to abscond or tries to interfere with the investigation or threaten the prosecution witnesses; or on the ground of discovery of a new material which requires cancellation of bail, or that the order granting bail is perverse. This principle has also been reiterated in the 3 case of Puran Vs. Ramvilas reported in AIR 2001 SC 2023. In the present case none of such circumstances exists. Only ground urged before me for cancellation of the bail is that sufficient time was not granted to the I.O. for carrying out the investigation. That ground, as stated earlier, has no merit. 5. Under the circumstances, the application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)