IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.768 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.80 OF 2006 Anson Thomas .. Applicant And Sumitra @ Savitri Gauda .. Original Accused V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.Anson Thomas, party in person. Mr.S.S.Sayyed for Respondent No.1. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : APRIL 23rd , 2009. P.C. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. It is the peculiar matter in which in fact an individual had preferred an application in person asking for cancellation of bail of Respondent original accused No.3. Said application came to be filed 1 in the year 2007 and is pending till this time. In the meantime, various documents and reports from the concerned local police stations were called. 3. After going through the said documents and the record of the matter, it is apparent that Respondent accused No.3 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 373 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for 60 days. Respondent accused No.1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3,4,5,6 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. However, no separate sentence was awarded. It is also a factual position that said conviction was challenged by accused No.1 present Respondent by preferring the criminal appeal No.80 of 2006, and said appeal is already been admitted and she is enlarged on bail during the pendency of the Appeal by this Court in the year 2006 itself. Thereafter, during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal, present application came to be lodged by the present applicant in person. Earlier to that he wrote a letter to Chief Justice of this Court mentioning various details as to the activities of convicted accused for the offence concerning immoral traffic. 4. During the arguments, it is submitted by the Applicant in 2 person that he is the original complainant and on whose complaint the action was taken by concerned police station and there was filing of the criminal case which was ended in the conviction as mentioned above. It is further contended that he had received various threatening calls from the accused and that subsequent to the released on bail said accused had indulged in smiler such activities. These arguments were countered by learned Advocate Mr.Sayyed for Respondent No.1 and it is submitted that applicant had no locus standi to prefer any such application for cancellation of bail and that it is in fact to be preferred by the State Government or by the concerned Investigating Agency and that also after compliance of the requirements concerning cancellation of bail as to flouting any of the order while granting of the bail by this Court. 5. After going through the record of the matter and on ascertaining the legal position on the aspect as to cancellation of bail once granted by the Court and considering that what are the requirements for such cancellation as to flouting any conditions or order of the bail and while considering that since granting of the bail the present Respondent accused is enlarged on bail by this Court, since the year 2006 and the appeal is pending and considering that there is no any active initiation by the prosecuting agency for cancellation of bail, in the opinion of this Court in the peculiar circumstances, which are brought on record, there is nothing to 3 entertain the present application and mainly considering the grounds for which earlier granted bail can be cancelled. 6. Needless to mention that the Courts while dealing with the application for cancellation of bail, must be very careful in dealing with the liberty of the person who is already granted the bail while admitting the appeal. In the result, present application stands dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) 4