1 Cri-A-4829-4830-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4829 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4830 OF 2010 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4829 OF 2010 Sandip Balaram Gondhali & Anr. ... Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4830 OF 2010 Sanjay Balaram Gondhali & Anr. ... Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr. R.D.Suryawanshi,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP, for the respondent. - State. Shri Sharad Suryawanshi i/b. Arjun Patil, Advocate, for the complainant. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 7th January, 2011. P.C. 1. The applicants in both these applications were accused in C.R. No. 114/2008 under Section 307 of IPC registered with Sheel Daighar Police Station, Thane. There were some other accused also in the said case. They had allegedly assaulted one Gurunath Gondhali and injured him. In that case, the Sessions Court had granted bail to them with condition that they shall not tamper with the 2 Cri-A-4829-4830-10.sxw prosecution evidence. That incident had occurred on 1.7.2008. The second incident occurred on 29.8.2008. On that day, at about 4.30 p.m. Gurunath and some other persons including Ramesh Gondhali were playing Cricket in the ground. At that time, 17 persons came there and allegedly disturbed the game when Gurunath told them that the said party was playing and therefore they should not come in the ground. After that the said persons including Dinesh Janardhan Gondhali left the ground threatening them. Within 20 minutes thereafter, 15 to 20 unnamed persons armed with different weapons came to the ground again and attacked Gurunath, due to which he suffered several injuries and died. About this incident, Crime No.171/2008 under Sec. 302 of IPC was registered. 2. On behalf of the prosecution, two separate applications were moved for cancellation of bail granted to nine accused persons. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, by an order dated 24.9.2010 cancelled the bail granted to the present applicants, while the application in respect of five other acused was rejected. The applicants, whose bail was cancelled in Crime No.114/2008 under Sec. 307 of IPC, have filed this application for setting aside the said order. 3 Cri-A-4829-4830-10.sxw 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 4. Admittedly, in a murder case in Crime No.171/2008 bail was granted by the High Court. The Sessions Court had granted bail in Crime No.114/2008 under Sec. 307 of IPC and that bail has been cancelled on the ground that the accused persons had not only threatened the witnesses, but they had also assaulted, attacked and committed murder of Gurunath. After some discussion at the Bar, the learned Counsel for the applicants makes a statement that he would not press the Application No.4830 of 2010 filed by accused Sanjay Gondhali and Dinesh Gondhali. He also does not want to press the Application No.4829 of 2010 to the extent of Sandip Gondhali. However, he contended that there was no material to cancel the bail granted to Balaram Gondhali - applicant No.2 in Application No.4829 of 2010. 5. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the FIR in Crime No.171/2008 and other police papers in that case, it appears that in the second case, names of the 17 assailants were specifically mentioned. Besides that, 15 to 20 unnamed persons were shown as assailants. Admittedly, the applicant No.2 - Balaram was well-known to the first informant - 4 Cri-A-4829-4830-10.sxw Ramesh Maruti Gondhali. He had given full names of 17 accused persons, including Sanjay son of Balaram Gondhali, but in the FIR he had not given the name of the applicant Balaram as one of the assailants. It appears that the name of Balaram Gondhali was impleaded later on by some injured witnesses. In view of the fact that name of the applicant Balaram was not mentioned in the FIR, it cannot be said that the applicant No.2 Balaram had done any act due to which it could be said that he had committed any new crime or cause apprehension in the minds of the witnesses about their safety. This aspect does not appear to have been considered by the trial Court. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Application No.4830 of 2010 stands rejected as not pressed. Criminal Application No.4829 of 2010 is partly rejected as not pressed in respect of applicant No.1 Sandip Balaram Gondhali. However, it is allowed in respect of applicant No.2 - Balaram Rama Gondhali and the impugned order cancelling bail granted to him in Crime No.114/2008 is hereby set aside. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)