IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2704 OF 2008 Mr.Satishchandra R. Pandey .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.M.J.Bhatt for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 18th September 2008. : 18th September 2008. : 18th September 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . Heard the learned advocate appearing for applicant and learned A.P.P for the State. Taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The prosecution has alleged that the applicant is involved in offences punishable under section 467, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated 09th July 2007 passed by the Sessions Court, he was enlarged on bail subject to condition that he will attend the concerned police station once in a week preferably on Monday and he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence. An application was made by the prosecution for cancellation of the bail. By judgment and order dated 07th July 2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane cancelled the bail granted in favour of the applicant. The first ground on which the bail was cancelled is that on certain dates : 2 : 2 : 2 : the applicant did not attend the police station. The second ground is that after he was enlarged on bail, he threatened an eye-witness Suresh Hari Jadhav on 12th July 2007 and a N.C. complaint bearing No.811 of 2007 has been filed by the said Suresh Hari Jadhav. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that by order dated 29th September 2007 the condition imposed in the order granting bail as regards marking attendance in the police station was modified and therefore bail could not have been cancelled on the ground of the breach of said condition. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant stated that though on 29th July 2008 he had made a statement on instruction that the applicant was infact set at liberty on 12th July 2008, the said statement was incorrect and the applicant was set at liberty prior to 12th July 2007. He has placed an affidavit on record stating that he will not enter the area within the jurisdiction of Kashimira police station where witness Suresh Hari Jadhav is residing, till the conclusion of the trial. 4. The learned A.P.P pointed out that bail has been cancelled on the ground that the applicant did not attend the concerned police station prior to the date on which the condition regarding attendance was relaxed. The learned A.P.P further submitted that one incident of : 3 : 3 : 3 : giving threats to eye-witness is more than sufficient to cancel the bail granted in favour of the applicant and therefore no interference was called for. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The order regarding attendance was modified by order dated 29th September 2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that in the months of July and August the applicant did not attend the police station on each Monday and he has attended the police station on 16th and 23rd July 2007 and 06th and 28th August 2007. The applicant has relied upon notings made by the concerned officer of the police station showing that he attended the police station on 16th and 23rd July 2007 and 06th and 28th August 2007 as well as on 27th August 2007 and 17th September 2007. It is true that there is some default on his part in marking attendance but the fact remains that notwithstanding all this, the Court passed an order on 20th September 2007 relaxing the condition regarding attendance. Considering this factual aspect, bail could not have been cancelled on the ground of failure of the applicant to report in the police station on each Monday. 6. The learned A.P.P has produced for my perusal a copy of the complaint lodged by witness Suresh Hari Jadhav on 12th July 2007. It will be necessary to refer : 4 : 4 : 4 : to the affidavit dated 17th September 2008 filed by the applicant. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit he has stated thus: "5. However, without prejudice to what has been stated by me in my said Criminal Application as well as in the foregoing paragraphs of the present affidavit, in support of my present application, I hereby give my undertaking to not to enter the area within the jurisdiction of Kashimira police station where the said witness, Mr.Suresh Hari Jadhav is residing, till the conclusion of the trial or my earlier discharge/acquittal in the said crime." 7. In view of the aforesaid undertaking recorded in the affidavit, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the bail will have to be quashed and set aside. However, the applicant will have to furnish fresh bail bonds incorporating a condition which is incorporated in paragraph 5 of his affidavit. In the event the applicant commits any breaches, it will be open for the prosecution to apply afresh for cancellation of bail. Hence, I pass the following order: : 5 : 5 : 5 : (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 07th July 2008 is quashed and set aside subject to condition that the applicant will furnish fresh bail bonds as observed above within a period of four weeks from today. (ii) The undertaking of the applicant in terms of paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 17th September 2008 is accepted. (iii) In the event the applicant commits any breach of the terms and conditions on which bail is granted or breach of the aforesaid undertaking, it will be open for the respondent to apply for cancellation of bail. (iv) Application is disposed of accordingly. (v) The parties and concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S. Oka, J)