1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 180 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. V/s. Mr. Rajendra Chandrakant Jain. ... Respondent. Mrs. P.P. Bhosle, APP for the State. Mr. M.P. Tekavade & Swati Tekavade with P.S. Sonawane and Sachin Y. Dere for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 20th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- The Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail dated 10th December 2008 is placed before the Court from time to time. 2. When it was first placed that is on 18th June 2009, it was pointed out that there was never any concession made in the Sessions Court when the Application for Anticipatory Bail preferred by the Respondent was being argued. The concession recorded in paragraph 8 of the order is incorrect. On that occasion, this Court granted leave to the APP to file an affidavit. Accordingly, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Sessions Court, Thane has filed an affidavit stating that she had never given any no objection and detailed report of the I.O. was filed for opposing the Bail Application. 3. Thereafter, this matter appeared on 29th June 2009 and 2 this Court issued notice on this Application to the Accused. On a subsequent occasion, this Court noted that the Applicant is not co-operating during the course of investigation. 4. Therefore, time was given to seek instructions. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent- Original Accused states that from the date he has been granted anticipatory bail, he has been attending the Vashi Police Station as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. However, the documents in this case are already seized and in possession of the I.O. Further, the Complainant is the Sales Tax Officer, who is fully aware of the procedure of issuance of ‘C’ form and consequences thereof. Therefore, the apprehension that the Accused is not giving the details from where the ‘C’ form was obtained is not correct. 5. To my mind, the arguments of the learned APP in support of this Application do not make out a case for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent. The grant and cancellation is based on settled principles. Apart from making some submissions, there are no supervening circumstances pointed out enabling this Court to cancel Anticipatory Bail. The Application is, therefore, dismissed. The Respondent to abide by the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court. The order of Anticipatory Bail shall inure for the benefit of the Respondents till the charge-sheet is filed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)