1 APPP-16.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2010 Deepak Parshuram Patil .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondent S/Shri Pravin Singhal with Nishigandh Patil for the Applicant. Ms R.V. Newton, APP, for the State. Shri Nitin Sejpal with Ms Pooja Bhojne for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: APRIL 11, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by this Court on the ground that the respondent has committed breach of the terms on which the bail was granted. The relevant part of the bail order dated 4-4-2010 reads thus: subject to condition that he will stay outside the Panvel Taluka and prior to his release on bail he will furnish his fresh address to the 2 APPP-16.11 Investigating Officer where he intends to stay 2. Respondent No.2 admittedly entered the jurisdiction of Panvel Taluka and, therefore, this application for cancellation of bail was moved. After notice was issued, respondent No.2 filed a lengthy affidavit running into 20 pages with a number of annexures. The refrain of the affidavit is how respondent No.2 was required to enter Panvel Taluka because of family difficulties like his both brothers, sons, nephews being in jail, etc.. One of the arguments sought to be advanced was that the order directed the respondent to stay out of Panvel Taluka which he misunderstood as requirement to stay outside Panvel Taluka and not a restraint to enter Panvel Taluka and, therefore, he entered Panvel Taluka. At the end of the affidavit, the respondent has also tendered his apology saying that if he has unwittingly committed any breach of the order, he may be excused. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1159. I have gone through the judgment. Each case in respect of cancellation of bail or grant of bail has to be considered 3 APPP-16.11 on its own merit and there cannot be a straight-jacket formula or ratio as to whether in a particular set of fact bail should be cancelled or in a particular set of fact bail should not be cancelled. The judgment in Nityanand Rai s case (supra) is based on facts unfolded in that case. Here the respondent had the temerity to say that he misunderstood the order when the order in clear terms asked him to stay outside and, in my opinion, order to stay outside means to stay outside and not just reside outside. If he had some justification for entering into Panvel Taluka for family circumstances, he could have approached the Court and sought relaxation of the condition which the Court would have considered on its own merit. Committing breach of the condition imposed shows the lack of regard for the orders of the Court and therefore cannot be condoned. Whether respondent No.2 tampered with the evidence or tried to pressurize the witnesses cannot be of consequence while considering the breach committed by the respondent. In view of this, the bail granted to respondent No.2 is cancelled. Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender to his bail and may be committed to prison by the learned Sessions Judge. The application accordingly stands disposed of. 4 APPP-16.11 3. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he would like to take the matter to the Supreme Court and prays for a stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. This order shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)