IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4411/ 2008 (Venkatrao Banote .vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 15 th APRIL, 2009 Heard Shri Karmarkar, advocate, holding for Shri Ghurde, Advocate for applicant, Shri Daga, Advocate for respondent no.1 and Shri Thakre, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2. This is an application for cancellation of bail, under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Bail is granted to the respondent no.1 by Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia on 21.11.2008, the operative order reads thus: “ ORDER 1] Applicant is released on bail in sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of like amount. 2] The applicant is directed to give attendance twice in a week to Salekasa Police Station on every Sunday and Wednesday between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and further not to pressurize the witnesses or involve in any criminal activities. 3] Bail in lower court. By this application, the applicant is seeking cancellation of his bail. It is necessary to note the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the said order: “However, he is involved by one of the accused by name Chandrakant in his confessional statement. Except this, there is absolutely no prima facie evidence showing the involvement of the applicant in the crime. '' The state has not applied for cancellation of bail. Allegations are leveled by the applicant against respondent no.1 saying that he is a contractual killer. However, in view of the observations referred above in the impugned order, it is not possible to cancel the bail of respondent no.1 at this stage. Application is therefore, dismissed. However, with liberty to the applicant to move for such cancellation, if circumstances so warrant. JUDGE smp