1 204.10-appln IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.204 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1153 OF 2010 Ashok C.Datwani ..Applicant Versus Ram Tejbahadur Singh & Anr. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1309 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.136 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1153 OF 2010 Ashok C.Datwani ..Applicant Versus Muradha Ram Singh ..Respondents None for the applicant. Mr.K.H.Giri for respondents – original accused in both applications. Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the State in both applications. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 7th March, 2011 P.C. :- None for the applicant in both the Criminal Application Nos.204 of 2010 and 1309 of 2010. 2. The first application is preferred by the complainant for taking action against respondent-original accused No.1 under the Contempt of Courts Act. The second application is preferred by original complainant against present respondent No.1-original accused No.2 for cancellation of his 2 204.10-appln Anticipatory Bail Application granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai. 3. The learned APP submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in Application No.204 of 2010 stated that he has instructions to appear for respondent No.1 - original accused No.1 and further stated that the copies of the present application along with annexures are not served on respondent No.1. He further stated that though as per the earlier directions of this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1153 of 2010 directing accused No.1 to surrender before the concerned Police Station within one week from the date of order dated 7th April, 2010, accused No.1 did not surrender but preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP was finally dismissed and consequently accused No.1 had already surrendered before the concerned Police Station and consequently granted regular bail by the Sessions Court, Mumbai on 15th July, 2010. 4. In view of the above situation and in view of the absence of representation from original complainant in both the applications, both the applications stand dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)