1 criapln990-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.990 OF 2011 Ghanshamdas Jwalaprasad Agrawal .. Applicant Vs The State of Maha. & Ors .. Respondents ... Shri A.I.Deshmukh,Adv. for applicant. Shri N.H.Borade,APP for Respondent-State Shri R.F.Totala,Adv.for R.2 & 3. ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 06/06/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] This Application is filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Court, Jalgaon in C.R.No.3/11 registered at City Police Station, Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471, 120-B r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The Sessions Court has granted bail by making observation that it is prima facie case of dispute of civil nature. In these proceedings, both sides are heard. 2] Present application is filed on the ground that the respondents- accused have caused breach of conditions imposed by Sessions 2 criapln990-11 Court while granting anticipatory bail. It is contended that on 4/2/11, respondent no.3 had been to Jalgaon and he tried to pressurize the applicant. Some contentions are made that the respondents have also filed complaint against present applicant in Gujrat State. 3] The contentions show that there had been sale and purchase transactions between the applicant and respondents. The applicant has made allegations that as against goods like Maize sold by him to respondent no.3, cheques were given and all the 3 cheques were bounced. It is contended that in respect of the transaction, no cheque was given though goods were accepted by the present respondents. It is contended that false defence was taken by present respondents that the cheques were given to some other person and not to the present applicant and so there was intention to deceive from the beginning. All the circumstances are already considered by the Sessions Court. In these circumstances and particularly, due to the fact that the transactions are of the year 2002, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Sessions Court in favour of the present respondents. There appears no force in the contention that there has been breach of conditions of anticipatory bail. 4] Advocate for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in 1994 (1) Bom.C.R.433 [Y.G.Mali V/s The Union of India and others]. In this case, the Bombay High Court has discussed 3 criapln990-11 provisions of Section 437 (5) and 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. It is observed that the standard of proof in an application for cancellation of bail is not same as one for proof of guilt in criminal trial and such application can be dealt with on balance of probability. In that case, when particulars were not furnished as regards the violation of conditions, the application filed for cancellation of bail was rejected. The facts and circumstances of each and every case are always different. 5] In the present case, the relevant facts are already discussed. In respect of the incident of 2002, the complainant took steps in the year 2010 and then Judicial Magistrate passed order under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents. So this Court feels that it is not a fit case for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Court. Application stands rejected. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln990-11