IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4321 OF 2008 Dnyandev Krishna Walilkar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another ... Respondents --- Shri Shri K.S. Patil for Applicant Shri S.R. Shinde, APP for State Shri Sudeep Pasbola for Respondent No.2 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2- Original Accused. 2. This is an application for cancellation of bail. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that by an order dated 8th August, 2007, this Court had granted bail to the Respondent in Criminal Application No.1943 of 2007. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 was arrested in connection with a serious offence punishable under sections 302, 120B, 109, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341 of the Indian Penal Code and section 37 (i) r/w. Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It is submitted that the bail, however, was granted subject to certain conditions which were imposed by this court. It is submitted that one of the conditions which was imposed by this Court was that the Respondent should not enter in the village or town till the final disposal of the criminal application. It is submitted that the Applicant has blatantly violated the said condition. The statements of the several witnesses are annexed to this application. A complaint was made to the police and according to the said complaint, the police went to the house of the Respondent No.2 and made a panchnama and they found that the Respondent No.2 was in his house though the condition was imposed by this Court. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that the Applicant has falsely implicated the Respondent No.2. He submitted that the panchas, in the panchnama which was made by the police, are close relatives of the Applicant. He further submitted that the Respondent no.2 is a schizophrenic and was admitted in the hospital on 19.9.2008 and was discharged on 26.9.2008. He, therefore, submitted that the complaint of the Applicant herein that the Respondent was seen in the village on 25.9.2008 is false since on that date he was in the hospital. He further submitted that the Respondent No.2 was taking treatment for his disorder and that he had no intention of pressurizing any of the witnesses and no such allegations have been made by the Applicant herein or by the police. He, therefore, submitted that 10 witnesses have already been also examined and that the main two eye witnesses were examined and that it was the stray incident for that purpose bail which was granted cannot be cancelled. 5. In my view, there is non-compliance of the condition imposed by this Court in its order dated 8th August, 2007 in Criminal Application no.1943 of 2007. The Respondent no.2 is one of the accused in the murder case which is pending in the Sessions Court. This Court had directed the Respondent no.2 not to enter this village or town till pendency of the trial. The panchnama clearly discloses that the Respondent no.2 was found in his house. The other witnesses also have made similar statements before the police which statements are annexed to this application. Therefore, there was a straight violation of the order passed by this Court. It is always open for the Respondent No.2 to apply for this Court for modification of the condition if he wanted to enter the village on medical ground. However, instead of making such an application, the Respondent No.2 has blatantly violated the order passed by this Court and therefore, there is no alternative but to cancel the bail which was granted by this Court. 6. Under these circumstances, bail granted by this Court by order dated 8th August, 2007 is cancelled. The Respondent no.2 shall surrender before the concerned Court within 7 days from today. 7. The police, however, shall immediately take the Respondent No.2 to the government or municipal hospital and he shall be examined by the psychiatrist ward. The Respondent No.2 shall forward his medical case papers to the concerned doctor. The Respondent No.2 shall be given adequate and proper medical treatment for his ailment and, if necessary, be kept in the government hospital in psychiatrist ward till his condition is improved. 8. Application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. 9. At this state, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 seeks stay of this order. His request is declined. V.M. KANADE J.