1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 170 OF 2011 Sarwar Ghyas Abdullah Ansari R/o Bhabua Town, Ward No. 22 Bhabua Distt. Kaimur, Bihar Vs. State of Maharashtra thr Police Station Incharge, P.S. Majri, Tal.Warora, Distt. Chandrapur. & Others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri S. S. Khandekar Adv for petitioner. Smt Joshi APP for respondents/State. CORAM:V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI JJ. Dated: 29 th MARCH, 2011. . Heard learned counsel for the original complainant and learned APP for the State. 2 2] Case of the petitioner is that his sister was set on fire and died on 27.02.2010 due to burn injuries. Hence he lodged F. I. R. on 3rd March 2010 against respondents 2 and 3 and also one other person. In the said case all the accused came to be arrested on 03.03.2010 vide Crime No. 4/10 at Police Station Majri, district Chandrapur. 3] Grievance of the petitioner is that as all the accused persons were arrested on 03.03.2010 and as it was a case under Sections 302, 498 A, 304 B read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, charge sheet ought to have been filedon 01.06.2010. However, charge sheet was filed on 02.06.2010 i.e. on the 91st day due to which respondents 2 and 3 came to be released on bail on 02.06.2010 giving them the benefit under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code, hence prayer of the petitioner is that an enquiry be directed in the matter of delay in filing charge sheet. 4] Affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 shows that matter has been brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police Chandrapur. Explanations have been called from the 3 P. S. O. Mr. Undirwade, P. S. O. Mr. Gajbhiye and Constable Mr. Dohe. All these explanations have been forwarded to the Superintendent of Police. Learned APP states that Superintendent of Police will look into the explanations and take necessary action. Hence the grievance of the petitioner as far as first prayer is concerned does not survive. 5] The Petitioner has also prayed that order dated 02.06.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby bail came to be granted to respondents 2 and 3 giving them benefit of Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code be set aside. 6] Thus in effect the petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondents 2 and 3. As far as this aspect is concerned the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of preferring an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondents 2 and 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Puran Vs. Ramvilas & Another 2001(6) SCC 338 has observed that the power of Court to cancell bail can be invoked by the State or an aggrieved party. Thus, from this decision it is clear that not only 4 the state can file an application for cancellation of bail but the complainant can also file an application for cancellation of bail. 7] As the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy, we are not inclined to entertain this prayer. It is open to the petitioner to prefer an application for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Court. Application disposed of in above terms. JUDGE JUDGE svk 5 6 7