..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.694 OF 2008 Shri Chandan Gopalji Shah and three others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.M.S.Mohite, Adv. a/w. Mr.Ashok M. Saraogi, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. Mr.M.M.Chopra, Adv. for respondent No.2. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. DATED : 11th November, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners-orig. accused, the learned APP for the State and the learned Advocate for respondent No.2 - orig.complainant. 2. The respondent has filed FIR at Palghar police station. The said FIR is numbered as FIR No.I-38 of 2008. Originally the FIR was registered under Sections 323, 363, 504, 506, 427 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners came to be arrested however looking to the nature of the offences they came to be released on bail by an order dated 19th March, 2008. Thereafter the supplementary statement of the complainant came to be recorded wherein he stated some fresh facts. Due to this, further sections came to be added and an application came to be preferred before the Court for ..(2).. cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners. The said application for cancellation for bail was preferred on the ground that the offence has turned more serious and, therefore, the bail granted to the petitioners in the above offences may be cancelled and the I.O. may be allowed to arrest the accused persons so as to recover some documents, one gold chain and cash. The bail granted to the petitioners came to be cancelled on 28th March, 2008. Being aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been preferred. 3. The case of the complainant is that some signatures were taken forcibly from the complainant by the accused persons and one gold chain worth Rs.12000/- and cash of Rs.13,000/- came to be robbed from him during the incident. 4. The learned APP for the State, on instructions, states that the petitioners have been attending the police station as and when called and they are cooperating with the investigation. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that without prejudice to the rights, contentions and their defence, the petitioners are willing to hand over an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Investigating Officer. The said amount of Rs.25,000/- would cover the amount of Rs.13,000/- which according to the complainant he ..(3).. had been robbed of and Rs.12,000/- for the gold chain which according to the complainant was also robbed in the incident. Besides this, the learned Counsel for the petitioners made a statement that apart from one deed of conveyance dated October, 2007 on stamp paper, there are no other documents concerning the disputed property, signed by the complainant in their possession. The said statement is accepted. 5. The learned Advocate for the complainant states that the above said statement would protect the complainant as far as production of any other document by the petitioners in respect of the disputed property is concerned. He is also agreeable to Rs.25,000/- being deposited towards chain and cash by petitioners before the I.O. In view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioners in respect of any additional document the respondent is not seriously pressing for cancellation of bail. 6. In view of all the above facts, I am inclined to set-aside the order dated 28th March, 2008 whereby bail granted to the petitioners came to be cancelled. Accordingly, order dated 28th March, 2008 is set-aside. 7. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ..(4).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)