1 Cri.A. 5359/2009 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5359 OF 2009 Vikas R. Kolekar .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. K.S. Patil for the applicant. Mr. N.J. Patil for the respondent nos.1 to 5. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent no.6. CORAM: D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 3RD OCTOBER 2011 P.C: 1. This application has been filed by a depositor, who had invested some money in a credit society, for cancellation of bail granted to respondent nos.1 to 5. 2. The respondent no.1 is the Chairman and the respondent nos.2 to 5 are the office bearers/directors of the credit society. Bail was initially granted by the Sessions Judge, Sangli by an order dated 17th August 2009. The State had filed an application bearing Criminal Application No. 184 of 2010 in this Court for cancellation 2 Cri.A. 5359/2009 of bail. By an order dated 22nd January 2010, this Court (myself) rejected the application of the State. In my view, the present application also deserves to be rejected on the very grounds on which the State's application was rejected. I would briefly indicate below my reasons. 3. In Daulatram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, the Supreme Court has laid down the principles for revocation/cancellation of bail once granted by the Sessions Court in a non-bailable offence. The decision in Daulatram's case (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in Sudhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra, 2000 SCC (Crime) 1508 and in Puran vs. Rambilas, (2001 (6) SCC 338. The position in law as laid down by the aforesaid decisions is that a bail once granted by the Sessions Court can be cancelled only on three grounds, namely (i) the accused who has been granted bail has misused the bail and misconducted himself, or (ii) because of discovery of new facts requiring cancellation, or (iii) that the order of Sessions Court granting bail is wholly unjustified and illegal or perverse. Admittedly, the present case does not fall under points (i) and (iii) mentioned above. Counsel for the applicant, however, submits that discovery of new facts 3 Cri.A. 5359/2009 which requires cancellation of bail. He submits that as a Chairman, the respondent no.1 had disbursed the loans to himself and his kiths and kins and the partnership firms in which his kith and kin were partners. In my view, these are not the new facts. These are the facts on which the offence is alleged. The case therefore does not fall under ground (ii) also. There is no merit in the application which is hereby rejected. (D.G.KARNIK, J.)