1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1047 OF 2010 The State ...Applicant. v. Pratap @ Prakash S. Paste ...Respondents. Ms A.T. Javeri, APP . For the Applicant/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned APP. Application is filed by the State for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the respondent , who is accused no.4. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that penalty of Rs.2,82,680/- was imposed on the complainant for illegal stone excavation. He approached Tehsildar accused no.1 and Naibtehsildar accused no.2 for the reduction of penalty to favour him. Accused no.1 Naibtehsildar demanded Rs. 10,000/- for himself and Rs.30,000/- for the Tehsildar, therefore, on the complaint lodged by the complainant a trap was arranged. After demand was confirmed by the accused nos.1 and 2, amount was actually accepted by the accused no.3 Vijay Naik, who was Kotwal. Amount of Rs.30,000/- was recovered from the accused no.3. Prosecution case was 2 that the present applicant, who is accused no.4 had facilitated payment by coming out from the chamber of Tehsildar telling complainant to go and to make the payment to Kotwal Vijay Naik. Applicant claimed to be innocent and according to him, he had no role in the commission of offence. The learned Special Judge granted anticipatory bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with certain conditions by the order dated 7.1.2010. That order was to remain in force for a period of 90 days. 3 Impugned order has lived out its life as it was to expire after 90 days from 7.1.2010 when the order was passed, therefore, that order is no more in force. Admittedly, all the other three accused, who were the main culprits were granted bail. In these circumstances, after a period of one year, I see no justification to interfere in the order. 4 Therefore, application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)