1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2478 OF 2008 Yuvraj Hiraman Kakade .. Applicant. Vs. 1.Navnath Tukaram Kakade .. 2.State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mrs.V.R.Raje for the applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b M.K.Kocharekar for the original complainant. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 17TH JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is filed by the original complainant. He has prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.1 by the Sessions Court, Pune, vide order dated 4.3.2008 in criminal application No.651 of 2008. 3. The cancellation is sought mainly on the ground that the order of the learned Judge is perverse. From perusal of the order dated 4.3.2008 it appears that the learned Judge granted the prayer for anticipatory bail after having taken into consideration that the investigation was almost complete and the custodial interrogation of the applicant was not necessary. Reference is also made to cross complaints, which according to the applicant 2 is incorrect. Ms.Raje submitted that no cross complaint was filed by the applicant or by a member of his group, and, therefore, the very foundation of the order of bail is unsustainable. Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand submits that cross complaint is not the only foundation of the order of bail, but it was passed after holding, for the reasons recorded in the order, that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Insofar as the reference to the cross complaint is concerned, Mr.Mundargi submits that it was made by the wife of respondent no.1 against one of the members of the complainant’s group for insulting her modesty. The offence was registered at her instance against the said member of the complainant’s group. Mr.Mundargi submits that this complaint was brought to the notice of the learned Judge and, therefore, he seems to have made reference to the cross complaint in the order. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that more than one and half year has passed from the date of the order granting anticipatory bail. Moreover, it appears that the applicants had filed criminal application No.1257 of 2008 in this court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. That application was withdrawn by the applicant through his advocate Mr.Priyal Sardar, instructed by Mr.Sachin J. Zalte, advocate on record on 26.6.2008. The applicant has stated in this application that withdrawal was without his consent and knowledge and when he came to know 3 about the withdrawal, he lodged a complaint with Loni Kalbhor police station against both the advocates. He has also stated that he forwarded a copy of the complaint lodged with the police to the Bar Council of India. In my opinion, if the applicant was serious in making the complaint against the advocates or their action of withdrawing his application, he either ought to have approached this court immediately for revocation of the order of withdrawal or atleast he should have approached the State Bar Council against the advocates. Thereafter once again he filed the instant application seeking cancellation of bail on 21st July, 2009. This application was placed before different courts from time to time and on most of the occasion adjournments were sought on behalf of the applicant. In the meanwhile, Mr.Mundargi submits that the case has been committed to the court of Sessions and it is now ready for final hearing. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the State has neither filed an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail nor have they filed any reply supporting the complainant. Even, across the bar, no submissions are made on behalf of the State contending that because of the order of anticipatory bail the police could not carry out the investigation properly and, therefore, the prosecution case has become weak. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no cogent or overwhelming circumstances are pointed out for seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. There are no 4 allegations that after the order of anticipatory bail was passed the accused was either not available for interrogation or he did co-operate or he abused the liberty or he made an attempt to tamper with the evidence. In the circumstances this application is rejected. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)