1 APPLN 1399 OF 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1399 OF 2010. Anil H. Kamra, .. Applicant -versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Prakash Daulatram Chandwani .. Respondents. Mr. M.S. Mohite, with Mr. S. H. Joshi, for the Applicant. Mr. Y. M. Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for the respondent. NO.2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 17th January, 2011. P.C. 1. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted on medical grounds to the Respondent No.2, initially by the Court of Sessions at Kalyan dated 15.9.2008 and continued from time to time i.e. on 10 occasions. It is the grievance of the applicant that such continuation of bail from time to time, would amount to enabling abuse of the liberty granted to the applicant and the powers have been misused for continuation of bail granted to the respondent No.2. 2 APPLN 1399 OF 2010 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties more than adequate length. They have also placed on record all sorts of medical reports, several judgments of various Courts in support of their contentions. 3. I have also heard learned APP. The question is whether the exercise of power by the Court of Sessions, when the applicant was granted bail for the first time on medical ground on 15.9.2008, continued from time to time was erroneous. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, this order was not questioned before this Court till the present application was filed. 4. There is nothing to show that the respondent No.2 has been feeling well or is perfectly fit and has not been suffering from ailments which require his being treated by experts in the field. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent No.2 has reportedly relied on some certificates of “Kerala Ayurved” as number of occasions does not wash out other certificates, including that from J.J. Hospital from where respondent No.2 has taken treatment for his ailments. The learned APP pointed out that experts in J.JH. Hospital, have stated that applicant could as well get the necessary treatment in jail hospital. 5. The respondent No.2 has thus, been on bail for two and half years now. It is not shown that the respondent No.2 has abused his liberty while on bail. There is an 3 APPLN 1399 OF 2010 allegation that the brother of respondent No.2 had thrashed up witness by name Gyanchandani, in the case. Gyanchandai was examined thereafter in the trial Court and has supported the prosecution. It is not shown that the applicant while being at large has misused the liberty. As on today 8 witnesses in the case have been examined and the case is at advanced stage of hearing scheduled on 24.01.2011. 6. In view of this though the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have so lightly granted extensions to temporary bail, granted especially on medical grounds, since the applicant has been on bail since long and he is not shown to have abused his liberty by interfering in the trial and since the applicant is not shown to have feigned illness, the order granting bail does not call for any interference. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also pointed out that the co accused in this case i.e. one Mr. Ashok Wadhwa who, was in fact allegedly engaged for killing Bhisham Kamra, has been admitted to bail by order of this Court dated 25th August, 2010. The allegations against Ashok Wadhwa are that Ashok Wadhwa had engaged Pappu Yadav for breaking hands and legs of victim and not to do away the victim. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that even if the respondent No.2 is held to have engaged Ashok and if Ashok had ordered Pappu Yadav only 4 APPLN 1399 OF 2010 to break hands and legs, it would be difficult to attribute to the applicant to higher level of guilt. There is no case of cancellation of bail. In view of this the application is rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)