1 (Crim WP 3039 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3039 OF 2010 Bharat Dinkarrai Vora ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Kapil Dave for the Petitioner Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State Mr. Kamlesh Mishra for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:9TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the State. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner -Original accused, challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 11th March, 2010. By the said order, the Sessions Court was pleased to cancel the bail which was granted by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 25.6.2008. 2. A complaint was filed by the Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 406 r/w. 34 of the 2 (Crim WP 3039 of 2010) Indian Penal Code in which allegations were made against the accused alleging that the Complainant was cheated and documents were forged and the complainant was induced to part with the cheque and the goods which were received, were not in accordance with the order which was given. Though the clothes were supposed to be received in its place when the delivery was taken, it was noticed that they were rags in the said containers. An application for bail was filed by the Petitioner before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant bail by passing the following order: “Seen Say filed. Heard both the sides. Accused by released on P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. 2. He has to attend police station regularly till further order.” This order was challenged by the Complainant in the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court was pleased to allow the said application essentially by observing that no reasons had been assigned by the learned Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant firstly, 3 (Crim WP 3039 of 2010) submitted that the Learned Magistrate had a jurisdiction to pass an order of bail even though the complaint was filed for the offence under section 467 of IPC. In support of the said submission, he relied on a judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere & Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others [CDJ 2010 BHC 1661] Secondly, he submitted that the investigation was over and, therefore, the custody of the applicant was no longer necessary. Thirdly, he submitted on merits that there was no material on record to show the involvement of the present Applicant. Fourthly, he submitted that the Applicant was very much available at Mumbai and in support of the said submission he pointed out certain documents. He submitted that merely because the learned Magistrate did not give any reason for releasing the Applicant on merits, the Applicant should not be punished and, therefore, he submitted that the learned Magistrate had erred in cancelling the bail. He submitted that this could not be a ground for cancellation of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that the allegations against the Applicant are of very serious nature and the learned Magistrate was under an obligation to pass a reasoned 4 (Crim WP 3039 of 2010) order while granting bail. He submitted that incriminating material was recovered and, therefore, the Sessions Court was justified in cancelling the bail. He submitted that the Applicant had also filed application for bail in this Court vide Criminal Application No. 1820 of 2008 after the Sessions Court had passed the order and this application was disposed of by order dated 28th September, 2010 and time to surrender was extended by three weeks. 6. After having heard both the counsel at length, in my view, this is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Court was justified in cancelling the bail particularly since the Magistrate had not given any reasons while granting bail to the Applicant. It is to be clarified here that the Magistrate shall consider the application for bail on merits and in accordance with law and may not dismiss it on the ground that he does not have a jurisdiction to hear the bail application particularly in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere (supra). 7. All contentions raised by the Applicant and by the 5 (Crim WP 3039 of 2010) Respondents are kept open. The application for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously. The Magistrate shall not be influenced by any observations made by the Sessions Court while cancelling the bail and also the observations made by this Court while dismissing the writ petition of the Petitioner. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The Petitioner shall surrender within two weeks. (V.M. KANADE J.)