{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4020 OF 2009 Sanjay @ Raosaheb s/o Nanasaheb Mane Age-39 years, Occ-Contractor R/o Prasad, Mahatma Phule Housing Society, Ahmedpur, Tq-Ahmedpuar Dist-Latur APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police, Latur, Dist-Latur RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 14th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with CR No.99/2009, registered with Ahmedpur police station for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. {2} 2. This application is moved before this Court as the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by the trial court on 08.07.2009, came to be cancelled on 11.11.2009 on the compliant of one Rajendra Bemble. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Also perused the papers annexed with the application. 4. It is not disputed that an offence at CR No.98/2009 is also registered against the complainant in CR No.99/2009. Statement of said Rajendra appears to be recorded during the investigation. It is alleged that deceased, brother of said Rajendra, had sustained burn injuries and he expired due to the same. When the anticipatory bail was granted by the trial court to the applicant, it appears that, on the very same day statement of this Rajendra came to be recorded i.e. after about one month of the alleged incident. It has to bear in mind that there are counter complaints against each other. In the premise, there is hardly any chance of threatening of any witnesses at the hands of either party. 5. Considering the rival submissions, it appears that the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by the lower court on 8th July 2009, came to be cancelled on 11th November 2009 mainly on two grounds; firstly, there is breach of condition in respect of tampering of prosecution witnesses and secondly, the applicant {3} has not given attendance before the concerned IO. To allege breach of something, two aspects have to be taken into consideration, though it is alleged that there is violation of conditions at hands of the applicant, yet, perusal of the order passed by the trial court, does not whisper as to how these allegations sustain or whether any material is brought on record in respect of requisition by the IO and the applicant has not attended the police station for interrogation. So far as alleged threats are concerned, there is no compliant in that regard. In the premise, it appears that the alleged breach of conditions is imaginary and hence it appears that the order of cancellation of bail is without any merit. In the premise, as the applicant was already released on anticipatory bail, which was in continuation till 11.11.2009, it is necessary to interfere with the order of cancellation of anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with CR No.99/2009 registered with Ahmedpur police station, he be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet. The applicant is at liberty to move for regular bail, after filing of the charge sheet. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln4020-09