1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.763 OF 2008 (RAJENDRA RAMBHAU MANKAR & ANR. VS. SHRIKRUSHNA PRALHAD LAHUDKAR & 2 OTH.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.V.Bhide, Advocate for applicants. Shri Amol S. Mardikar, Advocate for Respondents. Shri K.S.Dhote, A.P.P. for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 26, 2008. 1. This is an application for cancellation of bail, granted to Non-applicants No.1 and 2, by Shri S.N. Agarkar, Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, by his order dated 1st January, 2008 on bail application No.354 of 2007, after the same learned Judge had rejected the earlier bail application by his order dated 18th August, 2007. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the respondents, as well as learned A.P.P. 2 3. It is clear from the order passed, while rejecting the first bail application, that the entire papers of the investigation, except C.A. Report which was to be received, were available to the learned Judge, and after carefully considering the relevant aspects of the matter he had rejected the bail application. It seems that thereafter another application for bail was filed through one Advocate D.T. Nagrani. This was withdrawn by the said learned Advocate by stating that he had a talk with Advocate Dilawarkhan on telephone and Advocate Dilawarkhan had instructed him that he should not press the bail application filed by him. He also stated that Advocate Dilawarkhan had started for Khamgaon from Akola. Advocate Nagrani, therefore, stated that he would not be pressing the application which was filed. This application was only for one applicant Vijay. Thereafter another application was filed, bearing Bail Application No.364/2007, which was allegedly disposed of promptly by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, granting bail to the applicants. 3 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that such a course was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge and for this purpose, drew my attention to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. Through D.G.C. (Crl.), reported at 2008(4) SCC 449. In that case within nineteen days of rejection of the first bail application, without there being any change in the circumstances, the Judge entertained second bail application and admitted the accused to bail, which was disapproved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in this case the first bail application was rejected on 18.08.2007 and thereafter chargesheet in this case came to be filed and the second bail application was granted on 01.01.2008 i.e. almost four months after the first bail application was rejected. He also points out that in the meantime, this Court had allowed the application for bail by co- accused Pralhad on 11.12.2007, which fact has been noted by the learned Judge in his order. The learned counsel for the 4 respondents had also filed copy of order, whereby this Court had admitted the accused Pralhad on bail. It is clear from the said order that it was passed without going into the merits of the matter only by considering the age of the applicant as well as the ailments i.e. Asthama and Blood Pressure for which Pralhad was suffering. 6. In view of this, it is clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not entitled to rely on the fact that this Court had admitted Pralhad to bail. This was thoroughly irrelevant. It is also clear that there was no change in circumstances, inasmuch as C.A. Report, which alone remained to be filed when the first application was rejected, had not altered the circumstances. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have been more circumspect in deciding the bail application and admitting the applicant to bail, resulting in doubts being expressed. 7. All the same, the applicants have not shown that the respondents have abused their liberty since they have been 5 bailed out almost eleven months ago. In view of this, though the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have granted bail, no useful purpose would be served by cancelling bail and again pushing the Non-applicants to jail, since it is not shown that they have abused their liberty. 8. The application is, therefore, disposed of. JUDGE RR.