1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.400 OF 2009 Mohd. Hussain Shahabuddin Patel ...Applicant. v/s. Ajgar Khan Sharif Khan & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. R.D.Suryawanshi ,adv. For the Applicant. Mr. D.W.Bhosale, adv. For the Respondent No.1. Ms U.V.Kejriwal, APP for the R.No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MAY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard. Respondent/accused is facing the trial in Sessions Case No.390 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane for the charges under Sections 302, 304B and 498A of the I.P.C. His bail was rejected by this Court earlier. Thereafter, he made application before the Sessions Court for bail on the ground that he was suffering from some eyes problem for about 20 days and in spite of his request, he was not being given treatment for the same by the jail authorities. It appears that the prosecution failed to file reply and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted permanent bail by order dated 22.1.2009. That order is challenged in the present application. 2 Initially, this Court had allowed this application and set 2 aside the order of the Sessions Court by the order dated 26th February, 2009/16th March, 2009. That order was challenged by the accused/respondent before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the respondent/accused first to surrender and after he surrendered, the Supreme Court set aside the order of this Court and remitted the case back to this Court for re-hearing. Therefore, this matter has come up second time for hearing. 3 The learned counsel for the parties inform that all but one witnesses have been already examined and the matter is fixed tomorrow for examination of the last witness. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused also has no objection in allowing this application provided sessions case is disposed off as early as possible. 4 In fact, Sessions Court should not have granted permanent bail, when the request for bail was already rejected by this Court on merits. If the accused was required to be treated for the eye problems, he could have been granted temporary bail for some time. However, instead of granting temporary bail, the trial Court granted him permanent bail ignoring the fact that on merits, this Court had rejected his application for bail. It is also material to note that he was released on bail as per the impugned order dated 22.1.2009 and thereafter, he surrendered in June, 3 2009. That period was more than sufficient for him to undergo treatment. 5 In view of the above circumstances, impugned order is hereby set aside and the bail stands cancelled. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane is hereby directed to dispose off the Sessions Case No.390 of 2007 as early as possible and preferably by the end of June, 2011. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)