1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1278 OF 2008 Shaikh Papa Shaikh Kalu Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. *** Mr. Prasanna Kutti, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. *** CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1567 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. Versus Shaikh Shafi Shaikh Aziz and others. *** Mrs. B. R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the Applicant. Mrs. S. S. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and learned A.P.P. By these two applications, the complainant Shaikh Papa and also the State have urged to cancel the bail granted to the accused [Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein] in Criminal Application NO.50 of 2008 by order dated 22nd January, 2008. The ground assigned by the State as well by the learned counsel Mr. Kutti are (i) the accused having armed with criminal record should have its consideration to the learned Judge; (ii) earlier criminal application for bail being application No.1118 of 2007 was rejected on 15th December, 2007 by the Court and consequently the subsequent bail application should not have been 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. entertained by the same Judge; (iii) there was a phone call to the complainant threatening him; (iv) the accused persons were seen in the city of Bhusawal on 26th January, 2008 though they are inhibited by the order dated 22nd January, 2008. The counsel representing the accused informed that the visit at Bhusawal City on 26th January, 2008, if any, was only in order to collect the belongings as the accused were directed to live away Bhusawal. The counsel informs present petition is pending since 10th April, 2008. There is nothing to suggest that the accused persons have influenced or coerced the complainant. The chapter proceedings against the accused are owing to their political background; they carry different processions and activities in social cause. The counsel informed that the matter of 1994 for an offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is turned into acquittal of the accused. 2. The counsel seeking to cancel bail placed his reliance to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1409 [Mandata Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and another], and 2006 SCC Weekly 4339 in the matter of [Anilkumar Tulsiyani V/s Stte of U.P. and anr.], to contend that the bail in the situation can be canceled if it has been misused. 3. There cannot be a quarrel on the proposition of law, if there is obvious breach of terms of the bail, one has to face the tune and consequences arising therefrom. The fact remain, in the present matter, as to 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. whether the conduct of the accused was of such high degree which was creating a sort of terror in the mind of complainant. At this stage itself, it is clarified that the complainant himself is also an influential person of the area. 4. The explanation for the so called visit to the place Bhusawal on 26th January, 2008, in the fact situation, appears to be a genuine indication or visit. It did not amount to obliterate the effects of the ink of order. The criminal incidence referred by the State as well as by Mr. Kutti speak for themselves, however, thereafter much water has flown and it cannot be said that with the same heat in the mind the accused are acting and have became a menace to the society. 5. The rejection of earlier application by the learned Judge do find so recorded by him in the opening paragraph of his order, however, he has also referred, as contended by the accused that the investigation is also complete and nothing remained to be investigated. I quite see that there could not be an major change or circumstances for the learned Judge to have acted in the manner he has done in Criminal Application NO.50 of 2008. He was wrongly swayed away with arrest of one of the key person, the accused, who was instrumental in the matter of eliminating the deceased. This approach of the learned Judge may not be correct but the fact remains, that by virtue of the orders dated 22nd January, 2008 the accused/ applicants are enjoying bail and there is no overt act to influence 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the complainant or the witnesses, not to act in the manner it was expected from them. It is well settled 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 enjoy the freedom by availing the concession of bail during trial. In the order of the bail, reasons for prima facie role needs to be attributed which though are indicated not in detail by itself will not be a ground to cancel the bail. It is incumbent upon the aggrieved applicant to demonstrate that the very order of the learned Judge vitiates the normal standard and suffers from serious infirmity. I do not find such eventuality in the matter. Consequently, request by the State as well by the original complainant to cancel the bail is rejected. Applications are disposed of. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:13/08/2009. ans/1278