1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1356 OF 2010 M/s. Rajena Exports Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Ms. Vidya Dongre with Mr. Ganesh Gole with Mr.Pravin J. Karnik for Applicant Mr.S.R. Shinde - APP for State Ms. Heena Mistry - Thorat for Respondent No.2 ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 16TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and the Learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for cancellation of bail. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant- Original Complainant has invited my attention to the order passed by the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, Mumbai dated 18.3.2010. By the said order, the Learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the bail application filed by the Respondent No.2 -Accused. 1 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant-Original Complainant submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the Learned Magistrate while granting bail to the Respondent No.2 against whom the serious allegations have been made and who has been arrested for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. She submitted that several cases have been filed against the Accused and the Learned Magistrate on the same day, was pleased to grant bail to the accused. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply, in which explanation has been given by the said Respondent no.2 regarding the allegations which are made against the Respondent No.2 in the complaint. 5. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that no reasons have been assigned by the Learned Magistrate while granting bail to the Accused. The Learned Magistrate on the same day, heard the said application and has passed the following cryptic order: "Perused the application and say. Heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides. There shall be no purpose to keep the accused in jail. The accused shall be 1 released on bail after executing personal bond and survey bond in tune of Rs.10000/- or cash surety in the like amount with address proof." 6. It is a matter of record that several complaints have been filed against the Respondent No.2 of cheating and criminal breach of trust. In my view, the Learned Magistrate should have applied his mind and should have given cogent reasons while granting bail to the accused. Surprisingly, the application which is filed by the Applicant also is very cryptic. The application reads as under: "The Accused has been shown arrested under section 420, 406, 34 IPC. The accused is a victim of circumstances. the case appears to be civil. The accused be released on P.R. Bond on Bail. Sd/- Advocate No reasons have been assigned by the Learned Magistrate and there appears to be complete non- application of mind on the part of the Learned Magistrate, and hence the order granting bail to the 1 Respondent No.2 is, therefore, cancelled. The Respondent No.2, as it is, is in jail in connection with other similar complaints, which have been filed against her. The matter is remanded back to the said Court. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall, however, assign the case to some other Court. The Learned Magistrate to whom the case is shifted, shall apply his mind after giving opportunity to the Complainant to assist the Court and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order. 7. Application is allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)