Cri. Apln. No. 1534/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1534 OF 2011 Ratnakar @ Nana Kisan Borde ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. R.A. Tambe, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for State/respondent. Mr. C.V. Jadhav h/f. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 8th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Cr. No. 161/2010 registered with Sonai Police Station for offences punishable under section 395 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The application is filed on the ground that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not comply the condition which was imposed while granting anticipatory bail. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 appeared and reply is filed. For State, report of IO is also filed. There was condition that the applicants should attend the concerned police station every Sunday between 3 pm to 6 pm up to 30 April 2011. The order was made on 18th January 2011. Copy of attendance register is produced and it shows that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not comply the condition. Cri. Apln. No. 1534/11 2 Some record is produced by the accused, but in respect of subsequent period. It is the case of the above respondents that they were attending the concern police station, but their attendance was not marked. This submission does not appear to be true. From the record, it can be said that the respondents did not comply the condition. 2. Submissions made in this proceedings show that chargesheet is already filed. The advocate of the applicant submitted that one accused is absconding. It is surprising that one accused is absconding when he is close relative of applicant and he is permanent resident of village Shiregaon. In any case, due to this reason anticipatory bail which was granted, cannot be cancelled. It appears that regular bail application was also filed and that application is allowed. The purpose behind imposing such condition is generally allowing the investigating agency to interrogate and to make progress in the case. Now chargesheet is filed. So the relief granted by this Court cannot be now cancelled only because the above respondents did not comply with the condition. Steps could have been taken if the Investigating Officer had moved the Court immediately when there was breach of the condition. So the application stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln1534.11