1 Cri-A-2520-08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2520 OF 2008 Ramakant Durgaprasad Baldawa ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, i/b. Shshank Borade,Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. Shri sachin Deokar a/w. Priyal G.Sarda, advocates, for the respndent No.3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 11th January, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, who is original complainant and the counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The application is moved by the original complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 12.7.2008 by the J.M.F.C., Solapur, in Crime No.175/2008 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. Admittedly, the complaint arose out of a civil dispute between the parties. According to the complainant, the possession receipt of the flat is forged. The learned Magistrate granted bail on 12.7.2008 observing that no purpose could be served in keeping the accused in jail. He also put certain conditions , including 2 Cri-A-2520-08.sxw the condition of attending the Police Station twice a week till the filing of the charge-sheet. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant assailed the order on two grounds. Firstly, the order is unreasoned and secondly, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail in an offence under Sec. 467 of IPC. Though the order passed by the Magistrate may be brief, it cannot be said to be an unreasoned order because reasons are clearly given and also the conditions are imposed. All the offences, including the offence under Sec. 467 of IPC are triable by Magistrate. 4. In Ambarish R.Patnigare vs. State of Maharashtra 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 2775, as well as in Ishan Vasant Deshmukh vs. State of Maharahtra, this Court has taken a view that when the offence is triable by Magistrate, he can also grant bail. Besides this, there is no ground for cancellation of bail. Further, the bail was granted 2-1/2 years ago. The trial is still pending. They could not be detained in jail for such long period in such a case. No purpose will be served by passing any order for cancellation of bail. 5. Therefore, the Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)