1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 916 OF 2010 ( Mukhtar Ahmed Khan Vs. Tanvir Ahmed Haji Daudkhan & State of Mah. PSO Ramdaspeth Akola) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri R. J. Mirza Adv for applicant. Smt Sandhya Maniyar Adv for respondent 1. Shri N. R. Rode APP for respondent /State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 3rd AUGUST, 2011. . This is an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant on 10.12.2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Akola. The facts constituting the offence registered against the applicant being Crime No. 83 of 2008 under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 302 of Indian Penal Code are as under: One Firdaus Kausar married Mujib Ahmed Khan who is the brother of the applicant. This marriage was solemnized 5 years prior to the date of incident. Mujib Ahmed was operating a small 2 tea stall at the road side. After 1 1/2 years of the marriage Mujib Ahmed and other family members started illtreating Firdaus Kausar for not fulfilling the demand of Rs. 1 lac which was required by Mujib Ahmed for establishing a tea stall. Mujib Ahmed was threatening Firdaus that she would be divorced if the amount was not paid. Her parents arranged for Rs. 25,000/-, still illtreatment continued. On 31.07.09 at about 7 p.m. Mujib Ahmed, present applicant and other family members set Firdaus Kausar on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her person. After the incident her maternal uncle carried her to the hospital. There her dying declaration was recorded. On the same day Firdaus Kausar died. During the course of investigation the respondent no.1 came to be arrested. He filed bail application being Misc. Criminal Application No. 799 of 2009 for his release on bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the same and directed his release on bail. This very order is assailed in this application. Respondent no.1 filed reply stating that no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He is totally innocent and has nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of his brother and the deceased. 3 Learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order observed that the charge sheet was filed. Respondent is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He has wife and children. The learned Additional Sessions Judge raised a doubt as to really whether respondent had helped his brother in committing murder of Firdaus Kausar. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was coming from the husband of the deceased. Husband of the deceased was in need of the amount for conducting tea stall. In that light of the matter, learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the bail application and directed release of the respondent on his furnishing PR bond of Rs. 10,000/- and one surety in the like amount. It is a well settled law that factors relevant for setting aside order granting bail and directing the cancellation of bail are wholly distinct and different. Cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to. Of course, misuse of privilege of liberty can be a good ground for cancellation of bail. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 4 applicant that on 01.03.2010 the respondent no.1 had threatened the applicant that if latter pursues the criminal proceedings he would be killed. For that applicant lodged First Information Report. It is mentioned in para 13. However, details of the threats given by the respondent no.1 are not mentioned. It is not clear as to at what time and at what place incident occurred, what were the words used by the respondent no.1 while giving threats. On the contrary it is the contention of the respondent no.1 that only with a sole purpose of putting the non applicant in jail false application has been filed. This is not a case where it can be said that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed gross illegality while exercising the discretion of releasing the respondent on bail. The act of demand of money to operate the stall was attributed to husband of the deceased. Naturally, he was the person interested in getting the money and not the present respondent. In view of this, learned Additional Sessions Judge was doubtful about the alleged act of the respondent joining his brother in causing burn injuries to the deceased. Secondly, the allegations of respondent no.1 threatening the witnesses are also not well founded. However directing the respondent no.2 to attend Ramdaspeth Police Station Akola once in a week preferably on Monday between 10 a.m. to 12 5 noon till the trial is over would suffice the purpose. In the result I find no merit in this application. Application is rejected. However, the respondent no.2 shall report to Ramdaspeth Police Station Akola once in a week preferably on Monday between 10 a.m. to 12 noon till the trial is over. svk JUDGE