1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2328 OF 2009 Subhash Bhikoba Tambe .. Applicant. Vs. Satyawan Bandu Kedar & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2950 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Vs. Satyawan Bandu Kedar .. Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3195 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Vs. Uttam Sahebarao Phadatare .. Respondent. Mr.Sanjeev Kadam for the applicant in Cri.Appln.No.2328/09 and for respondent in Cri.Appln.No,2950/09. Mr.Rahul S.Kate for respondent no.1 in Cri.Appln.No.2328/09. Smt.G.P.Mulekar APP for the State. Shri Vikas Shivarkar for the respondent in Cri.Appln.No.3195/09 CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 4, 2011. PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The complainant - Subhash Bhikoba Tambe lodged an FIR S 2 with Walchandnagar Police Station, District Pune on 20.4.2009 contending that his son - Ketan wanted admission for the course of Professional Commercial Pilot. Accused - Satyawan Bandu Kedar contacted the complainant and informed him that he had good contacts with the Principal - Tanksali of Baramati Flying Club and Uttam Sahebrao Phadatare. Accused – Satyawan Kedar collected amount of Rs.35 lacs from the first informant contending that Uttam Phadatare had good contacts with Aviation Minister and through him he would get the work of his son done. However, the work was not done and Satyawan Kedar issued a cheque for repayment of the amount but that cheque was dishonoured. 3. Satyawan Kedar was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati. While accused - Uttam Phadatare was granted anticipatory bail. 4. The complainant has filed application No.2328 of 2009 for cancellation of bail granted to accused – Satyawan Kedar on the ground that his police custody was not granted and case was not investigated properly. It was pointed out that the revision of the case against police custody was rejected by the Sessions Court. The State has filed one application for cancellation of bail of accused - Satyawan and another application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused - Uttam Phadatare. The 3 contention of the State was mainly that they were not attending the police station and the conditions of bail/anticipatory bail were not fully complied with. 5. Today, learned A.P.P. on instructions makes a statement that the investigation has been completed. The charge-sheet is also ready but it has been pending with police for sufficient time because of pendency of these applications. She makes a statement that the charge-sheet will be filed within one week. She also makes a statement that though initially there was breach of condition but now the accused persons were regularly attending the police station as per the orders of the court. Therefore, now there is no justification for cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail. Similarly, as the investigation is already completed, the grievance of the complainant that the investigation could not be made because of grant of bail or because of refusal of police custody has no substance. 6. For the aforesaid reasons all the three applications stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)