1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3375 OF 2009 Dilip S/o.Prabhu Mandhle, Age-30 years, Occu-Agril. R/o.Sakol, Tq.Shirur-Anantpal, Dist. Latur APPLICANT (original accused no.2) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through, the Shirur Anantpal P.S. Tq.Shirur, Dist. Latur RESPONDENT Mr.P.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 03/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail as his bail application was refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, Latur vide order dated 07/09/2009. 2. This bail application is moved by the applicant accused in connection with crime no.72/2009 registered in Shirur Anantpal Police Station for an offence punishable under section 307, 452, 324, 323, 504, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. Considering the submissions 2 across the bar, it is an unfortunate incident that this accused and the others were involved in an offence registered in the same police station vide CR No.54/2009 in the offence punishable u/s. 363, 366(A) of the IPC. In the said offence, the accused were released on anticipatory bail and when they were released on bail, they were threatening the complainant in that case and the witnesses and when their plans were not successful, they attacked the complainant on 22/06/2009, which resulted in registering the offence vide CR No. 72/2009 in Shirur Police Station. 3. It is alleged across the bar by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant is falsely implicated in the second offence on the ground that in the earlier offence they were released on bail and the complainant were insisting to see the present applicant behind the bars. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned APP appearing for the respondent state placed the papers of investigation before me. Before considering the rival submissions across the bar addressed by both the sides in support of their submissions, it is necessary to consider why the bail is granted to the accused of the accusation as not to deprive his right of liberty but if the bail granted to the accused in the offence is misused by the accused, then such accused is not entitled to release on bail. In the present case also, the accused applicant after released on bail in the earlier offence, misused the bail and threatened the witnesses and the complainant in that case, attacked on the complainant therein, which resulted in registering the second offence CR No.72/2009 in 3 Shirur Police Station. On perusal of the papers of investigation as well as the order passed by the learned Trial Court, it is observed in para no.5 by the learned Trial Court as to how the incident occured and also observed by the Trial Court in para no.14 about the nature of injury which was found on the person of the complainant. It is supported by the medical papers submitted by learned APP during the course of submissions by way of papers of investigation. The medical certificate shows that there was injury on the vital organ of the complainant and i.e. also with the help of deadly weapon like “Katti” and if it is so, it is a clear case about the misuse of order of bail earlier granted in favour of the applicant, then the applicant is not entitled to release on bail. In the premise, following is the order - The application for bail stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.no.3375-09