1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2568 OF 2009 Rakesh L. Rohira ...Applicant. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Pankaj J. Das, adv. For the Applicant. Smt.S.D.Shinde, APP for the Respondent no.1/State. Shri S.Malik, adv. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 30, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is the husband of the respondent no.2. It appears that their relations were strained. It also appears that the respondent no.2 wife had filed a number of criminal cases against the husband and apparently those cases were found to be false and most of those cases have been quashed. Husband had also filed complaint against the wife alleging that she was holding two passports illegally and on the basis of that, crime no.197 of 2008 was registered with Powai police station. In that matter on 26th September, 2008, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondent no.2 directing that in the case of arrest, she would be released on sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties and she was directed to 2 report at Powai police station from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. from 1.10.2008 and thereafter once in a month till the conclusion of the trial. This application for cancellation of anticipatory bail is filed alleging that said conditions are not fulfilled. She is not attending the police station. Respondent no.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply stating that all the conditions are fulfilled and she has been regularly attending the police station. State has not filed any reply. The learned APP has no instructions. It is material to note that application is pending for the last about 5 months still the prosecution has neither filed any reply nor any instructions are given to the APP. 2 In view of the above, firstly criminal case pertains to holding two passports illegally. Therefore, the offence is against the passport authorities and not against the petitioner. Secondly, it is not private complaint case. If the conditions of bail are not fulfilled by the respondent no.2, State could file an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Thirdly, respondent no.2 has filed affidavit stating that she has been regularly attending and this fact has not been denied by the police. In view of these circumstances, it appears that husband has filed this application only because wife had harassed her earlier by filing 3 several cases, which were found to be false. Anyway, that cannot be ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no. 2. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)