1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.229 of 2008 (Idriskhan Manjurkhan and another v. The State of Maharashtra) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri A.M. Rizwy, Advocate for Applicants. Shri D.B. Patel, APP for Non-Applicant. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 23rd January, 2009 Criminal Application No.341 of 2009 : The objector may assist the Prosecutor. The application is disposed of. Criminal Revision Application No.229 of 2008 : This is a revision application for setting aside an order whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, cancelled the bail granted to the present applicants by his order dated 19-11-2008 on the ground that the applicants had been found involved in commission of an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code. The applicants were alleged to be involved in an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code. They applied for bail. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge observed that the complainant was bent upon having the applicants' bail application rejected. Yet on considering the pros and cons, the 2 learned Assistant Sessions Judge admitted the application to bail by his order dated 17-6-2008. Thereafter the applicants were found to be involved in commission of an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code. They were arrested by Sitabuldi Police at Nagpur. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, however, the applicants have been admitted to bail by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by his order dated 24-9-2008 in the said Crime No.238 of 2008. Thereafter an application was filed for cancellation of bail of the applicants before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on the ground of their involvement in offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code as also because the applicants were alleged to have threatened the victim's son. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly held that the threats given to the victim's son were not proved and, therefore, could not be a ground for cancellation of bail. However, on the ground that the applicants were shown to have been involved in an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code, he cancelled the bail granted to them. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned APP for the State and perused the reply filed on behalf of the State. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manjit Prakash and others v. Shobha Devi and another, reported at 2008 Cri.L.J. 3 3908, where in respect of cancellation of bail, the Court observed as under : “6. ... As stated in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.” The learned APP also sought to enlighten me by citing another judgment relating to cancellation of bail in Mandata Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in 2004(2) Crimes 105. It may be seen that the grounds on which the bail could be cancelled enumerated in Manjit Prakash are illustrative and not exhaustive. It is also to be seen that one of the grounds on which the bail could be cancelled is that the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal 4 activity. Now the learned counsel for the applicants states that the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code could not be termed as a similar criminal activity to offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code. He further submitted that in any case, as observed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, who admitted his clients to bail for offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code, there was no evidence indicating the applicants' involvement in the said crime. The observations of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge while admitting the applicants to bail cannot be taken to be a final verdict on the complicity of the applicants, since those observations came much before the chargesheet came to be filed. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in cancelling the bail, though such cancellation is indeed a very serious matter. The application is, therefore, rejected. The learned APP informs that the case is fixed for framing of charge on 27-1-2009 and that he would instruct the learned APP, incharge of the case, to ensure that the case is not held up for any lapse on the part of the prosecuting machinery. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall endeavour to complete the trial within a period of one month. JUDGE pdl