1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 842/2009 (The State of Maharashtra vs. Sayyad Abbad Sayyad Musharab ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr Anup Parihar, APP. for applicant Mr D M Upadhye, Adv for Respondent C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 14 th September, 2009. 1. By the instant application, the applicant-State has prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail, in view of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.. It is the grievance of the applicant that Crime No.107/2008 was reported at Kholapur Police Station Dist. Amravati u/s 379 read with sec.34 of the IPC. It appears that at interim stage, learned 2nd learned Additional Sessions Judge Amravati by order dated 15.1.2009 granted conditional bail in favour of the accused Syed Abbas (non-applicant herein) as follows :- “In the event of arrest of the applicant-Sayyad Abbas in Crime No. 107/2008 registered with Police Station Kholapur for an offence punishable under section 379 of the IPC, the applicant be released on interim bail on furnishing a PR and S.B. Of Rs.15,000/- on conditions that : i/ the applicant shall cooperate the investigating agency shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses shall attend Kholapur Police Station whenever directed by the investigating officer by intimation in writing ii the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court.” 2 2. Thereafter, it appears that at final hearing on 2nd February, 2009 the interim anticipatory bail was confirmed subject to same conditions by reasoned order. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge appears to have made a reference to material collected during the investigation and observed that there was no prima facie case against the present non-applicant, except on the ground that vehicle by which the wood was transported was registered in the name of non-applicant. Merely on that basis, it was further observed that one cannot properly conclude that non-applicant had stolen the wood. Thus, accepting the nature of accusations as also possibility of sentence in the case, interim anticipatory bail was confirmed 3. Learned Advocate for the non-applicant contended that the order which is sought to be cancelled was passed judiciously and it cannot be said that it was mechanically passed without considering the pros and cons of the matter. No substantial or overwhelming grounds have been made out on behalf of the applicant-State to cancel the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is also contended that accused had observed the conditions of the bail order rather punctually and is ready to cooperate with the investigating machinery. 4. Since no substantial ground or compelling or overwhelming grounds have been made out to cancel the benefit of bail, the instant application is rejected. JUDGE. sahare