1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2904 OF 2009 Baban S/o.Bajorao Birare APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.M.B.Narwade, h/f. Mr.A.N.Kakade, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent no.1 Mr.P.F.Patni, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the original complainant has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 vide order dated 10/07/2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in connection with C.R.No.977/2009 registered in Kannad Police Station for the offence punishable u/s. 306, 498, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. 2. Heard respective counsels for the parties. The only grievance of the applicant/the original complainant is that when the impugned order dated 10/07/2009 was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 2 Aurangabad, he has not perused the entire record of investigation till carried out and when it was prayed by the prosecution that time may be granted to produce the papers of investigation, without giving further time, application was heard and was finally decided resulting in granting the bail in favour of 2nd respondent. 3. On perusal of para no.1 of the impugned order, it is clear that the application which was filed on 01/07/2009 was decided on 10/07/2009, and in the impugned order in para no.1, it is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the application was opposed by the State and prayed for time. Inspite of sufficient time was granted to prosecution for producing the papers of investigation, the papers were not produced, but on the basis of the copy of the FIR, both the sides were heard and the application was decided. 4. Initially, I have make up my mind to remand the matter for fresh hearing by cancelling the order impugned. But at the time of submissions across the bar, It is also informed that the charge sheet is also filed in the said crime and because of this progress, there is no need to interfere in the order impugned. 5. On my questioning, it is informed to me by learned counsel appearing for the original respondents that even though the bail was granted at the initial stage, the liberty granted to respondent no.2 was not misused by the 2nd respondent to tamper the evidence of prosecution’s witnesses and if it is so, I did not find that any 3 interference is required in the impugned order. In the premise, the application sans any merit and deserves following order : Application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.2904-09