1 1 1 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.682 OF 2007 Shaikh Abdul Ashad Roshanali Shaikh .. Applicant. Vs. Rajan @ Ahad @ Sagar Abdul Khalid Malik & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.S.G.Rajput for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh Gadhavi for respondent no.1. Mr.H.J.Dediya A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicant, respondent no.1 and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application the applicant is seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.1 vide order dated 14.2.2007. Mr.Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant sought cancellation of bail mainly on the ground that the trial Court has ignored the material and evidence on record and has thereby committed a grave error of law in granting bail. He further submitted that the trial Court has overlooked the well settled principles of law to be followed while granting bail. He then submitted that the material on record clearly show the complicity of 2 2 2 respondent no.1 in the offence of kidnapping and rape. I have perused the order granting bail very carefully. In paragraph 6 of the order the learned Judge has observed thus: "6. The fact that the persons who brought the victim back home are not known and nobody asked them who they were and how they brought the victim with them. Similarly the medical certificate do not disclose prima facie that there was signs of rape on the victim, from the medical certificate, it appears that she is grown up girl, her age shown in the police papers is 16 years but when there is no sufficient material on record to hold that rape was committed on her or there was sexual intercourse with her, the age factor is irrelevant. From the police papers I find that the appilcant is entitled to be released on bail." 3. Even in the earlier part of the order the learned Judge has made reference to the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and respondent no.1. Looking to the reasons recorded in the order it cannot be said that the learned Judge overlooked the material on record. It is now well settled that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. The Supreme Court in Dolat Ram Vs. Dolat Ram Vs. Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana State of Haryana State of Haryana has observed that that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to the evade the due course of justice or 3 3 3 abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. There is no such allegation made by the applicant in the present case against respondent no.1. Similarly in the Supreme Court Puran Vs. Rambilas and Puran Vs. Rambilas and Puran Vs. Rambilas and Anr. (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 338 Anr. (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 338 Anr. (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 338 has observed that one such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime. In the present case after having perused the order granting bail, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has ignored the material and evidence on record. In the circumstances no case for cancellation of bail is made out by the applicant. The application is rejected. The trial is expedited. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)