1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2009 Gulab s/o Dagadu Shelar, Aged 69 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Kombhali, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar Applicant V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Raosaheb s/o Sitaram Gangarde, Aged 25 years, Occupation Education, Resident of Kombhali, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar Respondents Mr. S.D. Kotkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent No.1 / State Respondent No.2 though served, absent WITH Criminal Revision Application No. 103 of 2009 Gulab s/o Dagadu Shelar, Aged 69 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Kombhali, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar Applicant V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Bhausaheb s/o Sitaram Gangarde, Aged 34 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Kombhali, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar Respondents Mr. S.D. Kotkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent No.1 / State Respondent No.2 not served 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 27thAugust, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Both these Criminal Revision Applications can be decided by this common Judgment as they arise from one Crime bearing CR No. 79 of 2008 of Karjat Police Station, District Ahmednagar. The respondents were accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (i) (x) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The incident occurred on 18th April, 2008. On next day, the complaint was lodged and the offence was registered against the respondent No.2 (in both the revisions) (hereinafter referred as respondents). The respondents avoided arrest and even made an application for anticipatory bail in June, 2008, but the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar rejected their applications for anticipatory bail. Ultimately, the respondents were arrested on 19th January, 2009 and 11th February, 2009. It seems, thereafter, the investigation proceeded and the charge-sheet was also filed on 5th February, 2009 while one of the respondents was in custody. Both of them then applied for regular bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar and the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted them bail by his orders dated 9th February, 2009 and 27th February, 2009. In both the orders, the learned Sessions Judge considered the circumstances, such as; the investigation was over, the injured victim was discharged from the hospital long back in April, 2008, the weapon used in the crime was also recovered and that the respondents were in custody for some time. The learned Judge held that there was no reason to detain them further. On these reasons, 3 the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted them bail. These orders are challenged through these revisions. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the revision applicant / original complainant mainly challenged the legality of these orders saying that these orders did not discuss the merits of the case. He rightly pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not discuss the gravity of the offence, the nature of injury and above all the abscondance of the respondents for almost more than seven months. He said, through these revisions, the complainant is able not only to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents, but he is able to challenge the merits of the impugned orders. The submissions of the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant are quite viable, but I am not inclined to disturb the impugned orders granting bail to the respondents. The learned Judge, while granting bail to the respondents, considered certain circumstances, which according to him, were sufficient for granting bail to the respondents. The circumstances which the learned Judge mentioned in the orders, in my view, are quite cogent for granting bail. No doubt, the learned Judge should have discussed, as suggested by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, the facts etc of the case. But, in absence of such reasons, the orders does not become illegal. The revisions should therefore fail. Both the revision applications stand dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/cra102/09