1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1965/2010 ( Sufiyan Baig S/o Rustam Baig ..Vs.. Syed Azim S/o Syed Aziz & another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.L. Deshpande, Adv. for applicant. Mrs. Monika Tekade, Adv. for respondent no.1 (appointed by Court). Mr. D.B. Patel, A.P.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 21.6.2011. Heard. This is an application for cancelling the bail granted to the respondent no.1, who is involved in Crime No.27/2010, registered at the police station Shivaji Nagar, Khamgaon. On 19/5/2010 Imran Baig, the deceased, aged 24 years, had gone to play cricket on the school ground. The respondent no.1/accused had also gone to play cricket. There was a quarrel between them. This was informed by the deceased to his brother – the complainant. On the same evening at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased had gone to say Namaj to the Masjid (mosque). When he came out, the respondent dealt blow of iron pipe on his head and ran away. The deceased was taken to Government Hospital and was referred to Akola for further treatment. On 25/5/2010, the deceased succumbed 2 to the injuries. After submission of the chargesheet, the respondent no.1 moved bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed “ I perused the entire case diary and in my opinion, much more time will take place for trial of the case. There is no need to detain the accused in jail because accused is young person aged 19 years and also taking education and so this Court is inclined to release the accused on heavy surety. Considering the nature of the offence and legal aspects I hold point no.1 in the affirmative and I proceed to pass the following order.” This very order is questioned in this application. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision in case of Brij Nandan Jaiswal V/s. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and Anr. reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.833 and other decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Shri Ganesh s/o Balu Borase V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1636 and contended that considerations which weighed with learned Additional Sessions Judge in releasing the respondent no.1 are of extraneous nature. Merely on the ground that the respondent no.1 is aged 19 years, is taking education and investigation is being completed, the discretion of releasing him on bail ought not to have exercised. According to him, the assault by dangerous weapon like iron rod was 3 pre-planned by the respondent no.1. He was waiting for the deceased to come out of the Masjid. The moment he came out of the Masjid, the respondent no.1 dealt blow of iron pipe on the head of the deceased which ultimately resulted in his death. In this background, learned Additional Sessions Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction in releasing the respondent no.1 on bail, he arged. The respondent no.1 despite notice has not attended this Court, either personally or engaged any counsel. Therefore, Court appointed Mrs. Monika Tidke to assist the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 contended that considerations for cancellation of bail are totally different from the considerations which should weigh with the Court while releasing on bail. Before a bail granted is to be cancelled, there need to exist cogent and extenuating circumstances. In absence of supervening circumstances, the recalling of order granting bail is unwarranted. Merely on the ground that the bail order was passed on some mis- appreciation of factual position cannot be the ground to cancel the bail. Even if prima facie case against the accused is established, the cancellation of bail on considerations like nature and gravity of the offence is not permitted. She has relied upon the decisions in case of (1) Bhagirathsingh s/o Mahipat Singh Judeja V/s. State of Gujarat reported in (1984) 1 Supreme Court Cases 284, (2) Ramcharan V/s. State of M.P. reported in (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 617 and (3) 4 Bhulabai wd/o Barkaji Matre V/s. Shankar Barkaji Matre and others reported in 1999(3) Mh.L.J.227. Learned A.P.P. has clarified that the chargesheet is already submitted in this case. Although the respondent no.1 prima facie is involved in the commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the circumstances like his young age, he having dealt single blow, of course on the head of the deceased, which does not exhibit extreme brutality and also the fact that after being enlarged on bail he has not misused liberty, are according to me, relevant factors in not interfering with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. In this view of the matter, the application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.