{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3873 OF 2009 Bhagubai w/o Anna Sonawane Age-38 years, Occ-Household / Anganwadi Madatnis R/o Jamarkheda, Tq-Vaijapur Dist-Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent of Police (Rural) Aurangabad 2. The In charge of Police Station Shiur, Tq-Vaijapur, Dist-Aurangabad 3. Nivrutti s/o Macchindra Barse Age-44 years, Occ-Sarpanch, R/o Jambarkheda, Tq-Vaijapur Dist-Aurangabad 4. Laxman s/o Baban Chelekar, Age-33, years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Jambarkheda, Tq-Vaijapur Dist-Aurangabad 5. Suryabhan s/o Jagannath Barse Age-26 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Jambarkheda, Tq-Vaijapur Dist-Aurangabad 6. Sanjay s/o Datta Lambe Age-36 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Jambarkhed, Tq-Vaijapur Dist-Aurangabad RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr.S.G.Magre, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for respondents No.1 and 2 State Mr.A.B.Gaikwad, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 6 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 11th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicant has prayed for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondents No. 3 to 6 vide order dated 02.04.2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.1021/2008. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by learned APP and learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6. 3. My attention is drawn towards the order whereby bail was granted to respondents No.3 to 6. It appears that a condition was imposed on the applicants therein not to enter village Jambharkheda and to stay at Vaijapur and also to report PSO Vaijapur twice a week. It also appears that Criminal Application No.1385/2008 was moved by present respondents No.3 to 6 for relaxation of the said condition. It further appears that the said application came to be decided on 05.05.2008 and the said condition was relaxed in respect of respondent No.3 and he was {3} allowed to enter the village to attend meetings of village Panchayat as he is Sarpancha of the said village. It further appears that thereafter again an application was moved by present applicant for cancellation of bail and the same was decided on 04.05.2009, however prayer for cancellation of bail was not considered. It further appears that again an application was moved by present respondents No.3 to 6 for relaxation of conditions, by moving application No.2092/2009 and the same was decided on 04.08.2009 and condition imposed on respondent No.3 came to be relaxed, however, so far as application of other respondents / applicants therein was not considered. 4. It also appears that a complaint was lodged on 12.08.2009 against present respondents for violation of condition of not to enter the village and threatening the applicant. As no cognizance was taken, an application, signed by 31 villagers, was moved before the Police Inspector concerned on 25.08.2009 copy of which was forwarded to Superintendent of police. It appears that on 25.09.2009 again respondent No.3 entered the village and drove a car on the applicant and her family members with an intention to kill them and to create a scene of accident. Complaint of the said incident was lodged at CR No.10/2009. It is urged that even after the present application is filed, the respondents No.3 to 6 are violating the conditions imposed on them and hence it is prayed to cancel the bail granted in their favour. {4} 5. To ascertain the truth in the allegations of the applicant, learned APP was directed to call for a report. In response, a report is submitted that there is substance in the allegations against the respondents. 6. Though respondents No.3 to 6 appeared through counsel, yet inspite of repeated opportunities, no affidavit in reply is filed on their behalf, denying the allegations in the complaint and application. 7. Perusal of the report submitted by learned APP clearly indicates that there is violation of the conditions by respondent No. 3, however it does not appear so in respect of respondents No.4 to 6. It is urged on behalf of respondents No.3 to 6 that due to political rivalry between two groups false allegations are leveled by making shield of applicant with an intention to settle political scores. It appears that though non cognizable offence is recorded on the complaint of present applicant yet no action is taken against the accused. CR No.10/2009 registered in police station against respondent No.3 clearly indicates the attitude and behaviour of respondent No.3. In the premise, it cannot be said that due to political rivalry false complaint is lodged against respondent No.3. It appears that in the said offence section 188 of the IPC for violation of condition is also added. 8. Considering all the pros and cons of the matter it {5} appears that respondent No.3, who is released on bail, has no regards to the orders passed by the Court of law and hence the bail granted in his favour requires to be cancelled. 9. In the result, the application partly succeeds so far as it relates to respondent No.3 Nivrutti and fails so far as it relates to applicants No.4 to 6. Bail granted in favour of respondent No.3, Nivrutti, is hereby cancelled. Respondent No.3 is directed to surrender before the police within a period of one week from today, failing which learned CJM, Vaijapur to issue non bailable warrant against respondent No.3. Application, thus stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln3873-09