1 17apln4097-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4097 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Firoz Amjad Khan. ..Respondent. .... Mrs.A.S. Pai, A.P.P., for the Applicant - State. Mrs.Sushma Mishra, Advocate for the respondent. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 09TH JULY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for cancellation of regular bail. 2. Present application is preferred by the State for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions 2 17apln4097-08 Judge, Thane dated 11th July, 2008. By the said impugned order, the present respondent was directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with surety of like amount with further directions not to tamper with prosecution evidence and to cooperate with the police investigation. 3. Certain dates are of much significance so far as the merits of the present application are concerned. The incident happened on 3rd April, 2008. On that day, some boys were playing cricket at some open place infront of some shops. During the play, cricket ball went on the roof of the shop of the deceased. Some boys tried to climb on the roof to get the ball. There was some hot exchange of words between the boys including the present applicant and the shopkeeper- deceased. This incident was witnessed by some other persons who were present at the shop and also witnessed by the neighbouring shopkeeper. After such initial hot exchange of words was over and situation was pacified, within short time present applicant and other boys gathered at the said shop of 3 17apln4097-08 the deceased. The applicant was holding cricket bat and he hit the deceased on the backside of his head causing severe fracture injuries. Due to such assault, deceased fell on the ground. He was taken to hospital for medical treatment. While under treatment, he died on 8th April, 2008. 4. According to the statements of the witnesses, which were recorded immediately on the next day of the incident and also after about two months of the incident, the present applicant after initial hot exchange of words again came to the shop having cricket bat in hand and deliberately assaulted the deceased causing severe injuries and thereafter when the persons gathered on the spot tried to apprehend him, he ran away. Apparently for about more than two months, he was absconding and came to be arrested on 29th June, 2008. Admittedly when the investigation was still continuing bail application was preferred and it was allowed by the impugned order dated 11th July, 2008 mainly considering that it was the attack in spur of the moment and 4 17apln4097-08 on some casual fight and that it was not a premeditated attack and infact no any weapon was used. It appears that these factors weighed with the learned Sessions Court and still the matter was under investigation, the bail was granted. 5. After grant of such bail in July, 2008, there was no immediate filing of the application for cancellation. However, present application was filed after about three months. Still after filing of the application in October, 2008 it took nearly one year and nine months for the final result of the present application. It must be mentioned that this time taken by the prosecution for asking for cancellation of bail and time taken during pendency of the application before this Court has played its role and which is required to be weighed while considering the present application whether to be allowed or not. 6. Needless to mention that in case of cancellation of bail on the merits, it is always to be ascertained whether the order impugned is of such perverse nature as it is required to be 5 17apln4097-08 undone and the person is required to be again taken into custody considering severity of the facts. Considering the facts of the present matter at hand and still considering that the present applicant initially went back and came along with cricket bat and hit the deceased on the head, it cannot be said that the impugned order is of such a perverse nature so as to interfere with. This is mainly so, when there is a delay even on the ground of filing of the application for cancellation and also rather a systemic delay even after filing of the application for cancellation for bail for matter to reach for final orders. Apparently, various dates have been taken for want of investigating officer. 7. Apart from the above, another factual position also weigh with the Court is that the chargesheet has already been filed. Infact only after filing of the chargesheet, apparently present application for cancellation of bail was preferred. The matter can be put to trial in immediate proximity, after framing of the charge and under these circumstances there is 6 17apln4097-08 nothing to interfere with the impugned order of grant of bail. Hence the order : :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.4097 of 2008 for cancellation of bail stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)