1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1934 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2009 Balchand S/o.Baliram Kale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.S.N.Boiwar, h/f. Mr.M.A.Kandharkar, learned counsel for applicant in both the applications. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for first respondent in both applications. Mr.G.R.Ingole Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3 in first application. Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3 in second application. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 03/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. Both these applications are filed by the original complainant who has filed private complaint before J.M.F.C. Kandhar. It appears that in the said complaint, order of investigation was passed by Learned J.M.F.C. Kandhar u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After the investigation was handed over to the police, it appears that the applications were moved by the respondents in both these 2 applications before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar for their release on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.5/2009 registered at Osmannagar Police Station. After hearing the concerned parties, learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge pleased to allow those applications and released the applicants on bail. 2. By the present applications, the original complainant has approached this Court to cancel the order of bail passed in favour of respondent no.2 and 3 in both these applications. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State as well as the counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and 3 in both these applications. 4. Even though the grounds mentioned in both these applications on which the order of release on bail of respondent no.2 and 3 are under challenge, the main ground for cancellation of these both applications is that the applicant herein was not heard and the evidence collected during the investigation was not properly appreciated by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge while passing the order of bail in respect of the applications moved by respondent no.2 and 3 in both these applications. 5. During the course of submissions across the bar, no stress was given on the grounds of objections or the grounds on which both 3 these applications were filed for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent no.2 and 3 in both these applications, but during the course of submissions across the bar, only the stress was given that after release of respondent no.2 and 3 in both these applications, they are threatening the original complainant and only on this sole ground, it is claimed that the bail granted in favour of these respondents to be cancelled. 6. On perusal of the grounds on which these applications were filed, first I did not find that ground raised in these applications before this Court that threats were received by the original complainant in both these applications from respondent no.2 and 3 is raised in the Sessions Court. If both these applications are silent on the point that the threats were received by the original complainant from respondent no.2 and 3, mere submissions across the bar that as these respondents are threatening to the complainant, their bail to be cancelled is of no excuse. On my query to the learned counsel appearing for applicant in both these applications, as to whether any complaint was lodged before the police station about the threats received from these respondent no.2 and 3, it is informed that no such complaint was lodged with the police neither these threats were intimated to the learned APP appearing in the Lower Court, in this Court as well as in the Sessions Court, then threats are received to the complainant from respondent no.2 and 3 in both these applications is nothing but the excuse made only to make the point of argument before this Court, which is of no 4 use. 7. Considering these submissions across the bar even I did not feel it necessary to hear the learned counsels appearing for respondent no.2 and 3 in both these applications. Hence the applications deserve the only order : Both these applications stand rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.1934-09