1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2500/2007. 1) Rajendra s/o Madhav Ghodke and another. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.S.S.Kazi Advocate for Applicants; Mr.DR Korde, APP for State. Mrs.SS Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of parties heard finally. 2) The complainant, estranged father, being aggrieved by the kidnapping of his minor daughter Supriya under allurement and enticement by brother of the present applicants/accused, has prosecuted him and the present applicants. The present applicants enjoyed prearrest bail however an application below Exhibit-28 in Sessions Case No.55/2005 was made and the learned Judge by order dated 7.7.2007 directed that the 2 accused/applicants to surrender before P.I.Newasa up to 17th July, 2007. 3) The matter was taken up before this Court, seeking to challenge the very order below Exhibit-28, and ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) thereof, was granted by order dated 18th July, 2007, the said order of cancellation of bail is suspended and is in abeyance. 4) Learned APP informs trial is in progress. 5) The allegations against the present applicants/accused are, they have even threatened the witnesses, same is refuted by filing affidavits of Dipak Jagannath Parakhe and Somnath Suresh Takawade. 6) The Counsel for original complainant has a grievance that the minor girl Supriya and brother of the present applicants/accused are absconding since date of incident and their whereabouts are not known, the police are naturally worried about the well-being of the daughter. The counsel fervently urged to insist the present applicants/accused to provide some clue or address of his brother to ascertain well- being of the minor girl. 7) At this stage of the matter, though I find the expectation from the accused/applicants is logically correct, however, since he himself 3 is handicapped for want of proper communication from his brother as to the whereabouts of the minor girl, he is justifiably not in a position to disclose the same. For that purpose, putting him in fetters is not the answer. 8) So far as threats are concerned, it appears to be a ground raised to ensure cancellation of bail without there being any merits in such allegation of threats. The applicants/accused enjoyed bail since 2007, trial is in progress, curtailment of their liberty should be taken with cautious approach. Consequently, I do not see any justification in the order of the learned Judge passed below Exhibit-28, seeking to cancel the bail/liberty granted to the present applicants/accused. The order passed below Exhibit-28 is accordingly set aside. The accused/applicants be treated to be on bail in terms of the order dated 16.12.2004. 9) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. 10) Original papers be returned immediately. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2500.07 4