1 116611 vgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1166 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1230 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ....Applicant V/s. Ramesh Sonaji Virkari ...Respondent Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P., for the Applicant Mr. Sudeep Pasbola for the Respondent CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND P.D. KODE, JJ DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned A.P.P. and the counsel for the respondent – accused No. 7. The respondent – accused No. 7 was granted bail by this Court vide order dated May 5, 2006 in connection with offence punishable under Sections 302 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code during the pendency of the appeal. The respondent has 2 116611 already been convicted in respect of the said offence. He was granted bail on conditions referred to in the order dated 5th May, 2006. 2. The prosecution has now moved this application for cancellation of bail, principally on the ground that, during the operation of bail order, the respondent indulged in further offence of serious nature. According to the prosecution, three criminal cases have been registered against the respondent. The first is LAC No. 20 of 2009 for offence under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act with Crime Branch, Unit No. III, Mumbai; the second is LAC No. 1014 of 2009 under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act with Nagpada Police Station; and the latest case is C.R. No. 261 of 2011 for offence under Sections 452, 506(II), 376 I.P.C., and 3 and 25 of the Arms Act with Amboli Police Station. 3. The respondent contends that the first two offences are one and the same, which was originally registered at Nagpada Police Station, but has been subsequently transferred to Crime Branch. Assuming that the first two offences are one and the same, the fact remains that it is in respect of offence under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The respondent was found to be in unauthorised possession 3 116611 of arms and ammunition, and that, by itself, is a good ground for cancelling the bail granted by this Court. The third offence, in any case, is, again, a serious offence against women. The counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the said incident had occurred out of private relationship between the respondent and the complainant. Even so, offence under Section 506(II) is a non-cognizable offence in the State of Maharashtra. Besides the other offences referred to in C.R. No. 261 of 2011 are no less serious. In addition, the respondent was alleged to have carried unauthorised weapon, for which, he has been charged for offence under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. 4. In our opinion, such convict cannot be allowed to move scot-free, and the bail granted to him in terms of order dated 5th May, 2006 should be cancelled forthwith, and he should be taken into custody. 5. The learned A.P.P. informs, on instructions of Vishram Purushottam Abhyankar, P.I., Versova Police Station, that the respondent is already in custody in connection with the last offence, being C.R No. 261 of 2011 registered with Amboli Police Station. 4 116611 If it is so, he shall not be released on bail until further orders of this Court in the pending Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2005. 6. We place on record that the prosecution has filed two separate applications for the same relief. The learned A.P.P. states that it is on account of mistake committed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor. At the outset, he requested the Court to permit him to pursue Criminal Application No. 1166 of 2011. 7. Accordingly, the present order is passed on the said application, and the companion Criminal Application No. 1230 of 2011 is disposed of as not pressed. P.D. KODE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.