1 BA-1749-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1749 OF 2011 Ganesh Laxman Jadhav ... Applicant/Orig.accused No.2 vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Rahul S. Kate,Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. R.V.Newton, APP for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 9th December, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant, who was accused No.2 in Crime No.165/2011 registered with Walchandnagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 363,366, 368, 376 read with Section 34 of IPC, was granted bail by the Sessions Court by order dated 30.9.2011 mainly on the ground that the applicant had represented that he was to appear for an examination on 30.10.2011. Therefore, while granting bail, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge put certain conditions and one of the conditions was that the applicant would produce hall-ticket of the examination before the Investigating Officer to verify whether really he was to 2 BA-1749-11.sxw appear for the examination. 3. On 15.10.2011, on behalf of prosecution, an application was made before the Additional Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail on the ground that the applicant had failed to fulfill the condition of producing the hall-ticket or other relevant documents to show that he was to appear for examination. It was also stated that he had not appeared for any examination. In view of this, the trial Court came to conclusion that the applicant had cheated the Court and obtained bail by making false statement. Accordingly, his bail was cancelled and he was taken in the custody. Therefore, the applicant has filed this application for bail before this Court. 4. On perusal of the order dated 30.9.2011, it is clear that the trial Court had granted bail to the applicant mainly because his father had filed an affidavit to the effect that the applicant was to appear for examination on 3.10.2011. It appears that the statement was false. Neither he was to appear for examination nor he in fact appeared. The learned Counsel for the applicant concedes that the applicant has no document to show that he was to appear for the examination. As such, it is clear that the applicant cheated the trial Court and obtained the bail order by making false statement. Therefore, the cancellation of bail was justified. 3 BA-1749-11.sxw It may also be noted that the applicant was arrested on 31.8.2011. Investigation was still in progress when the bail was granted. Later on, investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. 5. Therefore, while this Application stands rejected, the applicant is granted liberty to file fresh application before the trial Court for bail which shall be considered on its own merits on the basis of material collected by the police and filed along with the charge-sheet. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)