1 REVN 475.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2011 Mr. Hrishikesh Dattaram Sherlekar. ... Applicant. V/s. Mrs. Divyashri Hrishikesh Sherlekar & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Pratap Patil for the Applicant. Mr. S.V. Marwadi for Respondent No.1. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 10th OCTOBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard finally. 2. The learned Counsel for the Accused/Applicant Hrishikesh submits that the learned Additional Sessions has stayed its order on 30.09.2011 for 10 days in Criminal Misc. Application No.62 of 2010. 3. Learned Counsel for the wife - Divyashri waives service has received papers. 4. Trust deficit between the couple has landed in prosecution vide C.R. No.66 of 2008 by the wife - Respondent for an offence under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of I.P.C. against the Applicant and his family members. The Applicant was 2 REVN 475.11.sxw directed to be released on bail in the said case. Thereafter, on 30.12.2008, Respondent - Wife filed another FIR vide Crime No.50 of 2008, for an offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. against the Applicant and one Shashikant Ahire. She claimed, Shashikant Ahire, on instructions of the Applicant attempted to eliminate her by calling her at a secluded place and being under the impression that she has been invited by her husband to settle the controversy between the couple, she showed her willingness to go alongwith him. The couple is highly educated and independently employed. The efforts by the wife - Respondent to ensure that the bail granted either in C.R.No.66 of 2008 or C.R.No.50 of 2008 should stand terminated did not yield result with the learned J.M.F.C. 5. The wife ultimately moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who by his order dated 30.09.2011, granted her application thereby rejected bail granted to the Applicant vide order dated 3.3.2008 by J.M.F.C., Vashi in Criminal Case No.836 of 2008. 6. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, I have read the text of the FIR No.50 of 2008 and also the order of the learned Judge and particularly, paragraph 8 thereof. Considering the averments in the FIR, there is apparently no direct role or involvement of the Applicant in co-ordinating services of said Ahire to ensure elimination of the Respondent - wife. Observations of the learned Judge, particularly paragraph 8 of his order is repelling the record and he has 3 REVN 475.11.sxw been swayed with the earlier part of the FIR which has virtually no nexus to the husband. The Accused/Applicant is on bail since 3.3.2008. The threat perception which the wife has proposed, appears to be illusory. The couple is at logger head. They rather have other means to settle the controversy. 7. The termination of bail granted, as the wife desires need not be entertained. No primary eventuality that the Applicant has misused the bail granted to him by threatening the wife- Respondent or there could be new facts as disclosed by subsequent events to the wife. Application consequently succeeds. The order of cancellation of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. Observations are restricted to the present Application. However, the Applicant shall surrender his pass-port if any, to the learned J.M.F.C. at Vashi. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)