sat 1 cri.appln 378-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 378 OF 2011 Union of India ...Applicant vs. Shri Rajendra Balu Shelke ...Respondent Mr.Kiran J. Kandpile for the Applicant. Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP for the State. Mr.Sandeep Pasbola with Ms.Pooja Bhojne for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. NOVEMBER 25, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard Mr.Kandpile, learned Counsel for the applicant-CBI, Mr.Pasbola, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2 Perused the impugned order passed by the Special Judge of Mumbai under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3 The grievance of the applicant-CBI is that the respondent, who is one of the accused in RC3/E/2010/CBI/BS&FC and who has been released on bail by sat 2 cri.appln 378-2011 the Special Judge, is trying to threaten the witnesses and is attempting to tamper with the evidence. 4 The case involves forgery of letters of credit purportedly issued by Punjab National Bank, Solapur and discounted at State Bank of India, D.N. Road Branch, Mumbai. It is alleged that the respondent was the key accused in preparation of forged letters of credit. 5 The facts of the case have been discussed by the learned trial court in its order. The cancellation of bail is sought on the basis of development which has taken place after the date of release of the respondent on bail. The respondent has been released on bail on 20th September, 2010. The applicant is seeking cancellation of bail on the basis of affidavit filed by one of the witnesses which is dated 29th November, 2010. 6 Shri Rajkumar Sharma whose affidavit is filed, is one of the prosecution witnesses. If the bail is sought to be cancelled on the basis of subsequent developments, the applicant could have moved the trial court for sat 3 cri.appln 378-2011 cancellation of bail. The trial court has observed in its order that the case is mainly based on documents. The trial court was of the view that the respondent will not attempt to tamper with the evidence or will not threaten the witnesses. However, now the allegations are made that such an attempt is made by the respondent. It is, therefore, just and proper that the applicant shall move the trial court for the relief they seek from this Court. 7 The application is dismissed. Liberty is given to the applicant to file an application for cancellation of bail before the trial court which shall be considered on merits. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)