IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1991 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1991 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO. 1991 OF 2008 Latifa Kasim Duduke, .. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents. Mr K.S.Patil, for the applicant. Mr J.A.Udaipuri, for respondent nos 1 and 2. Mr J.P.Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 13/10/2008 DATE : 13/10/2008 DATE : 13/10/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the applicant-complainant and Mr.Udaipuri, learned counsel for respondent nos 1 and 2 and Mr Yagnik, learned APP, for the State. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking cancellation of bail which was granted by the Sessions Court vide its order dated 9.6.2008. Mr Patil, counsel for the applicant, after relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Puran Vs. Rambilas and Anr (2001) 6 SCC 338, submitted that the Court below has completely ignored the material and evidence on record and has passed the perverse order in the present case and that to without giving any reasons. He submitted that such order would be against the principle of law and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. He took me through the order of the court below granting bail to the respondents-accused. It is true that the reasons recorded by the trial Court are not satisfactory but it cannot be said that he has completely ignored the material on record. Moreover, it is now well settled that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of the bail, already granted. In Dolatram and ors Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, the Supreme Court has held that generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, illustrative and not exhaustive, are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. Neither counsel appearing for the applicant nor the learned APP has made any allegation of such nature. On the contrary, the learned APP, on instructions, has stated that the reposondent nos 1 and 2 have been reporting the concerned police station very regularly and have not indulged in any illegal activity nor have they made any attempt to tamper with the evidence. Respondent nos 1 and 2 have not committed any offence after their release on bail. Keeping that all in view, in my opinion, this is not a fit case warranting interference in the order granting bail by the trial Court. The application is rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)