1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH ; NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3003/2007 APPELLANT : State of Maharashtra through D.G.P. Buldhana for Police Station, Buldhana, Tah. & Distt. Buldhana. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. Samadhan Bhagwan More, aged 24 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Ward No. 1, Buldhana, Tah. & Distt. Buldhana 2. Ashish @ Sonu shriram Jadhav, aged 24 years, Occ. Labour. 3. Vishal Rangnath Mutthe, Age 24 years, Occ. Labour. No. 2 & 3 both are r/o Junagaon, Buldhana, Tah. & Distt. Buldhana. 4. Sagar Namdevrao Chincholkar, Age 24 years, Occ : Labour. 5. Santosh Mohan Bawaskar, Age 24 years, Occ : Labour. No. 4 & 5 both are r/o. Junagaon, Buldhana, Tah. & Distt. Buldhana. 2 ===================================== Mr. Kothari, A P.P. for Appellant State Mr. A.J.Thakkar, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM :S.R.DONGAONKAR, J DATE : 13.3.3008 1. Heard Shri Kothari, A.P.P. for appellant State and Shri A.J.Thakkar, Advocate, for Respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of the respondents. 3. The present respondents namely Samadhan, Ashish, Vishal, Sagar and Santosh had moved application for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana, vide Bail Application Nos. 122/2007, 123/2007 and 124/2007. They were arrested for the offence under Sections 395 and 397 of the I.P.C., arising out of Crime No. 14/2007 of P.S. Malkapur Road, 3 Buldhana. 4. The learned Judge has passed an order to release them on bail on 24/4/2007. The order is thus; B. All applicants/accused be enlarged on bail in C.R. No. 14/2007, U/s 395 & 397 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Buldhana, on their furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each and solvent surety in the like amount by one or two surety. C. The applicant shall not enter Malkapur city till decision of the case and shall not tamper with the evidence. D. The surety shall be furnished before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldana. 5. The appellant State has challenged that order contending that the offences alleged against the respondents are serious and there was sufficient evidence to incriminate them for the aforesaid offences and therefore, they should not have been released on bail, more so because there was some recoveries. 4 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this application saying that the learned Sessions Judge had considered all the aspects of the case and thereafter he passed an order to release them on bail and it was subject to conditions. 7. I have given anxious thought to the matter. It does appear that there are no previous conviction to the credit of the respondents, nor it is alleged that they have committed any offence or any mischiefs have been committed by them after they have been released on bail. It is also informed that they are attending the trial regularly and they have not abused their bail in any way. 8. It is necessary to bear in mind that though the offences alleged against the respondents are serious, fact remains that the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the material on record that is available in the charge sheet, has 5 released them on bail. I need not to into the details of the reasons recorded by him. Suffice it to say that as the respondents have not abused their bail, nor there is anything to say that they have committed any offence either prior to release on bail or even thereafter, the bail which is already granted with some conditions, cannot be cancelled. 9. In this view of the matter, the application needs to be rejected. It is rejected, however, with liberty to the appellant to move for cancellation of bail, if the respondents or any of them, abuses their bail or commit any offence in future. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Rvj/-