1appln-5348-09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 5348 of 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr N.R.Bubna, for the Applicant. Mrs A.M.Z.Ansari for respondent No.1. Mr P.S.Hingorani, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 16TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of respondent No.1 who is the original accused, charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 307, initially and said Section 307 was subsequently converted to Section 302 due to the death of the wife of respondent. 2. Factual position, as on today, as narrated by learned counsel Smt Ansari for respondent No.1 and which has already been conceded by learned Advocate Shri Bubna for the applicant that the charge sheet in the matter has already been filed and on 15.1.2010 an application was preferred for regular bail and same was granted with the order as accepted. In the present matter, the 2appln-5348-09 charge is already framed and the matter is posted for hearing. 3. Admittedly, on the factum it must be said that present respondent No.1 was not present at the house when the actual incident of burning of his daughter-in-law occurred and all along he was at Kanpur, whereas the incident took place at Malegaon, District Nashik. Allegedly, the deceased was set ablaze by other accused. However, suffice it to say that present respondent No.1 was not present on the spot. Only allegations, then, against him probably were for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Learned Advocate Shri Bubna for the applicant – original complainant brought attention of this Court towards the ratio propounded by the following authority: 2008 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.)138 Prashant Kishor Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra and submitted that the tenure of the anticipatory bail is for a limited duration and same cannot be continued indefinitely, or cannot be converted into a permanent bail and accused is required to apply for independent bail and it is required to be disposed of on merits. 4. Considering the specific factual position in the present matter at hand, as detailed above, in the opinion of this Court, it is to be seen now at this stage, when the charge is already framed and matter is posted for trial, whether there are such circumstances that anticipatory bail earlier granted by the Sessions Court Malegaon is required to be cancelled. In the opinion of this Court, considering the circumstances in totality, there is nothing to entertain the present application for 3appln-5348-09 cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted, much less there are any other compelling circumstances to again put respondent No.1 behind the bars, now, during the pendency of the trial which is to start. Under these circumstances, present application is disposed of with the following order:- ORDER (a) Criminal Application No. 5348/2009 stands dismissed. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J)