IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.1142 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1142 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1142 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra, Applicant Vs Amol Jibhau Shirsat, .. Respondent. Along with Along with Along with CRI.APPLICATION NO.1143 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1143 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1143 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra, Applicant Vs Ramesh Tansingh Solanke and 2 Ors .. Respondents. Ms. A.T.Javeri, APP for the applicant. Mr Sachin U.Dhakephalkar, for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 29/09/2008 DATE : 29/09/2008 DATE : 29/09/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Ms.Javeri, learned APP and Mr Dhakephalkar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. These two applications are filed by the State seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Malegaon District Nashik, vide orders dated 28.8.2006 and 12.10.2006 in Sessions Case No.161 of 2006. The crime No.8/2008 was registered at Satana Police Station, Taluka Malegaon. The said crime was registered under sections 302,307,323, 143,147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 120-B read with 34 of IPC and under section 4 read with section 25 of the Arms Act and under section 37(1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The bail was granted to all the four respondents in August and October, 2006 while the present application was filed by the State seeking cancellation of the bail on 21.2.2007. Admittedly, the orders granting bail dated 28.8.2006 and 12.10.2006 were not challenged by the State in further proceedings. 3. It is against this backdrop, Ms Javeri, learned APP, submitted that the orders passed by the Sessions Court granting bail are cryptic and it is clear that the material on record and more particularly statements of the eye-witnesses were not considered in proper perspective. She further submitted that the learned Judge did not endeavour to find out whether there exists, prima facie, case against the respondents. She submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record against the respondents to connect them with the alleged offence. The learned Judge, she submitted, also failed to consider that the material on record is sufficient to hold that respondents hatched the conspiracy and with common intention committed gruesome offence of murder. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P.and Anr, AIR 2004 S.C.4267. 4. On the other hand, Mr Dhakephalkar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that no case whatsoever for cancellation of the bail is made out by the State. The law is now well settled that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. The State has miserably failed to make out such case. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgment in Dolatram and ors Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349. 5. At the outset, let me observe that the grounds on which the State is seeking cancellation of bail, in my opinion, are not available/sufficient particularly in view of the fact that the order granting bail was not challenged by the State. It is now well settled that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case and the cancellation of bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. The Supreme Court in Dolatram’s Dolatram’s Dolatram’s case has clearly observed that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, illustrative and not exhaustive, are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. 6. None of the grounds mentioned in the Memo of Appeal or argued across the Bar, in my opinion, deserves to be considered for cancellation of the bail in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Dolatram’s case. The bail was granted in August and October 2006, while the present application seeking cancellation of the bail was filed on 22.2.2007. No allegations of either interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner are made in the application. There is no material on record to show that there is a possibility of the accused absconding or likely to commit similar offence or tamper with the evidence or that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow them to retain their freedom by enjoying the liberty. There are no such allegations either in the application for cancellation of bail or made across the bar. The Courts below while granting the bail, seem to have considered the materials on record and recorded reasons in paragraph 3 of the order dated 28.8.2006 and in paragraph 7 of the order dated 12.10.2006, enlarging the respondents on bail. I do not deem it appropriate to examine, at this stage, whether the reasons recorded by the learned Judge warrant interference at this stage. In my opinion, the Judgment relied upon by the learned APP is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that judgment, the Supreme Court was dealing with the appeal challenging the order granting bail to the accused. In that case, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that there is no need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. What is necessary for the court dealing with application for bail is the nature of accusation and the severity of punishments in the case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. That Judgment further records that reasonable apprehension of tampering of witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant is also relevant factor which needs to be taken into consideration. In my opinion, no case whatsoever is made out for cancellation of the bail. In the result, these applications deserve to be rejected. Order accordingly. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)