1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.209 of 2008 (Ankush @ Lalya s/o Laxman @ Raoba Koram and another v. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Samudrapur, Distt. Wardha) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for Applicants. Shri D.P. Thakre, APP for Non-Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 5th December, 2008 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant. By this revision, the applicants question the order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, cancelling bail granted to the applicants in Sessions Trial No.98 and 99 of 2008, because the applicants had forayed into the complainant Laxmibai's residential area at about 8.30 p.m. and thus committed breach of condition that they shall not enter that area, which was imposed upon them at the time of admitting to bail. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the certificate of Sarpanch shows that they were not present at the village till 16-9-2008 was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has to be rejected. It 2 would not be for Sarpanch or members of Gram Panchayat to certify who were present or absent in the village. There is a FIR by Laxmibai lodged about the incident dated 23-8-2008 at 8.30 p.m. and, therefore, the applicants' bail was rightly cancelled. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on a judgment of this Court in Chandrashekhar Rangarao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2498. In that case, this Court was considering an application for cancellation of bail relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mehbood Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2004) 2 SCC 362. The Court observed that mere assertion of alleged threat to witnesses should not utilised as a ground for cancellation of bail, routinely. In the present case, first, it is not a mere assertion of threat to witnesses, but it is the presence of the applicants in the locality of the witnesses in breach of condition on which they had been bailed out. Secondly, this Court is not considering the application for cancellation of bail, but is considering the revision directed against cancellation of bail. Considering the limited scope of revision, it would not be necessary for this Court to find out whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who cancelled the bail, is erred while doing so. Thus, there is no perversity of error shown in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3 The revision is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE pdl