IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1124 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1124 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1124 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant (Orig.Complainant) vs. Raju @ Dhanknya Maganbhai Thakry ...Respondent (Orig.Accused No.3) Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. None for the Respondent. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned APP for the State. None appears for the respondent though he is served. Affidavit of service has been filed by the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant - State of Maharashtra preferred this application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent - accused no.3 by order dated 19th December, 2007 in Criminal Bail Application No.69/2007. The Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, was pleased to grant bail to the respondent in C.R.No.55/2007 of Kasturba Marg Police Station. An offence under Stations - 2 - 302, 393 and 394 and Sections 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the respondent accused. 3. Prosecution case is that one Mahendra was carrying a bag which contained gold jewellery. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent alongwith others tried to rob Mahendra of the said bag containing gold jewellery and refused to let him go of the bag, they assaulted him, as a result of which, he sustained seven injuries including fracture of the skull. The Sessions Court has granted bail to the respondent on the ground that there is no witness to the alleged incident. 4. The learned APP for the State submitted that these observations are incorrect as there are two eye witnesses to the said incident viz. one Mitesh Shah and Mahesh Vyas. These witnesses have identified the present respondent in the test identification parade. Thus, it can be seen that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail by relying on erroneous grounds and such an - 3 - order cannot be allowed to stand and deserves to be set aside. The learned APP has also pointed out that the respondent is also involved in four other cases. A similar application for cancellation of bail was filed against Vishal @ Suraj Arjunsingh Chouhan who is also an accused in the said case and this court in Criminal Application No.1315/2008 was pleased to cancel bail which was granted to the said applicant, by its order dated 23rd September, 2008. The facts in the present case are identical. 5. Looking at all these facts, this is a fit case for cancelling the bail granted to the respondent. Under these circumstances, order dated 19th December, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, is set aside and bail granted to the applicant is cancelled. 6. The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. - 4 - (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)