1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 184 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant versus Jaywantrao Dhondiram Patil & ors ... Respondents ... Ms.M.H.Mhatre APP for the applicant State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 22nd January 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the State prays for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent nos.1 to 5 by the District Judge I and Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli by an order dated 17th August 2009. 3. In Dolatram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between rejection of a bail in a non bailable case at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already 2 granted. In paragraph no.4 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed :- 4. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. 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. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 3 The decision of Dolatram’s case was quoted and followed by the Supreme Court in Sudhendu Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra, 2000 SCC (Crime) 1508. Thereafter in Puran Vs. Rambilas, 2001 Vol.6 SCC 338, the Supreme Court again re-iterated it and further stated that concept of setting aside an unjustified illegal or perverse was totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused had misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring cancellation. The position in law is thus settled that a bail which is granted by the Sessions Court can be cancelled on three grounds viz.i) the accused who has been granted bail has misused the bail and misconducted himself, or (ii) because of discovery of new facts requiring cancellation or (iii) that the order of Sessions Court granting bail is wholly unjustified and illegal or perverse. 4. The decision is well settled that there is a distinction between the initial order of the Court rejecting the bail and the order for cancellation of the bail once granted by the Court. A bail once granted by the Court principally the grounds that the accused has misused the bail and/or has misconducted after the bail was granted and there has been no discovery of material facts. The only ground alleged is that the order of 4 the Sessions Judge is perverse. 5. I have perused the order of the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has considered the facts adequately. He has also noted that there was inordinate delay of nearly three years in lodging of the complaint. This was certainly a relevant circumstance. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in granting bail on considering this, among other grounds. Application is therefore rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)