1 Cri-A-3338-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3338 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant (Orig. complainant) vs. Santosh Narayan Torsekar ... Respondent (Orig. accused) Ms. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the applicant - State. Mr. Raghuraj Deshpande, i/b. Mr. M.B.Gawade,Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 17th February, 2011. P.C. 1. The application is filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondent in Crime No.28/2010 registered at Sawantwadi Police Station under Sec. 302 of IPC for committing murder of his father. 2. It appears that father of the accused died because of strangulation. Whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence in the matter. After analyzing the whole prosecution case, in detail, the learned Sessions Court granted bail to the accused. The prosecution wants this Court to re- 2 Cri-A-3338-10.sxw appreciate whole evidence and to come to conclusion that bail should not have been granted. It is settled position of law that considerations for grant of bail and considerations for cancellation of bail are different. Normally, the High Court will not interfere in the order passed by the Sessions Court granting bail merely because on re-appreciation, a different view is also possible. It is also settled position of law that if the order granting bail is per-se wrong, illegal or perverse, the High Court can certainly interfere and cancel the same. In the present case, it is difficult to say that the impugned order is per-se wrong, illegal or perverse though a different view could be possible if prosecution evidence is re-appreciated but that is not permissible under the law. Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)