* 1 * FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1139 OF 2009 ( FOR RELAXATION OF CONDITION OF BAIL) ( MUKUND JANU BHOIR V/S. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA) ___________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's orders orders ___________________________________________________________ Ms.Shubhadha Khot,adv.for applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for respondent/State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 6TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This application is for modification of the order dated 17th February, 2009 passed on Criminal Application No. 381 of 2009. 3. The applicant has been arrested for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. He filed Criminal Application No. 381 of 2009 for bail which was allowed by the order dated 17th February, 2009 subject to certain conditions. One of the * 2 * conditions is that he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Kalyan Taluka Police Station till the hearing and final disposal of the trial. This condition was imposed in view of an Affidavit filed by the wife of the deceased in which she has expressed an apprehension that the applicant being an influential person may threaten the prosecution witnesses. 4. Ms.Khot, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the daughter of the applicant is to get married on 9th March, 2009 and the place of marriage falls within the jurisdiction of Kalyan Taluka Police Station. Therefore, the condition that he will not enter the jurisdiction of Kalyan Taluka Police Station, is required to be relaxed by modifying the order. The fact of marriage of the daughter taking place on 9th March, 2009 was admittedly not disclosed in the application for bail. Ms.Khot, * 3 * submits that the applicant did not know on 17th February, 2009 that his daughter was to get married on 9th March, 2009. It is impossible to believe that the applicant was not aware of the date of the marriage of his daughter. It is claimed that the marriage was suddenly fixed. However, perusal of the present application shows that no particulars whatsoever have been stated therein as to how and when was the marriage fixed. In the absence of these particulars, there cannot be any modification of the order, particularly, in view of the fact that the applicant is facing serious charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and an application filed by the wife of the deceased apprehending that on his release on bail, the applicant would interfere with the witness. In the circumstances, the application is rejected. * 4 * [JUDGE]