1 Cri.A.524.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 524 OF 2011 Sadashiv Narayanrao Pawde, R/o Pawdewadi, Tq. And District Nanded. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.B.Narwade, Patil, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.G.R.Ingole, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.R.D.Biradar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 12TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court, Nanded, in Criminal Application Nos. 878 of 2006 and 902 of 2006. Present application is filed on the ground that respondents-original accused tried to tamper the prosecution witnesses. Both sides are heard. 2. Today, the copy of order passed by the Division Bench (CORAM: 2 Cri.A.524.11 NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE,JJ ) of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1143 of 2010 came to be produced. Copy of the Roznama also came to be produced, which shows that matter was posted for evidence for first time on 25.08.2009. Direction was given by the Division Bench of this Court for expeditious disposal of the matter. It was submitted for respondents that as many four witnesses are examined, who includes brothers of complainant. 3. The applicant has contented that on 12.11.2006 threat was given by the accused to the applicant that he would be finished. It appears that police registered the report as N.C case. A Copy of report dated 07.12.2010 shows that on 07.12.2010, in the incident, which took place in the campus of Court, Nanded, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 gave threat of life and asked him to withdraw the case. Present application came to be filed on 02.02.2011 i.e. after about two months of alleged incident. Roznama shows that matter was fixed on 07.12.2010 for evidence, but only from the circumstance inference cannot be drawn that respondents No. 2 to 5 attempted to tamper with prosecution witnesses. It is not a case of the applicant that he had applied to Sessions Court and he brought the said fact to the notice of Sessions Court immediately. The case is now made part heard. In the FIR allegations are made that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 used 3 Cri.A.524.11 weapons like sword, stick etc. and the injuries were caused to the applicant and his family members. He had contended that his ear was cut and he had sustained fracture injury to his left leg. All the circumstances are considered by the Sessions Court and relief is granted. 4. Present proceeding came to be filed directly in the High Court. The applicant did not approach to Sessions Court. In ordinary course, such incidents should have been taken to Sessions Court. Today, one copy of the application, given by the applicant in Sessions Court came to be produced. It shows that in the said application applicant had applied for cancellation of bail contending that the incident had taken place on 18.12.2010. There is no whisper about incident dated 07.12.2010. This circumstance needs to be kept in mind. The said application was not pressed . In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that it is not necessary to cancell the relief already granted in favour of the accused and application stands rejected. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK 4 Cri.A.524.11