{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2604 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Abarao Parasram Jadhav & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the applicant State Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for respondents No.1,2,4,6 to 9 Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 5 ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2605 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Suresh Dagdu Jadhav & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the applicant State Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2606 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Aslamkhan Alimkhan Pathan RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the applicant State Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the respondent ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2608 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra APPLICANT {2} VERSUS Gopinath Sarverao Jadhav RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the applicant State Mr.M.K.Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2609 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Deepak Tukaram Jadhav & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the applicant State ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2610 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Bhaginath Shankar Jadhav & Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the applicant State Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondents No.1,4,5,10 & 14 Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for respondents No.2,3,7,8 & 11 Mr.S.K.Barlota, Advocate for respondent No.6 Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for respondent No.9 ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2611 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Sitaram Sheshrao Jadhav & Others RESPONDENTS ....... {3} Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the applicant State Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 6 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18 th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By these applications, the applicant State has prayed for cancellation of the bail granted in favour of 35 accused by the learned additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad in connection with an offence registered at CR No.17/2009 with Phulambri police station, mainly for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and other consequential offenses. 2. Heard learned APP appearing for the applicant State followed by the submissions of the respective counsel for the respondents, who are granted bail by the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad. 3. Learned APP has placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of “Puran V/s Rambilas & another” with “Shekhar & another V/s State of Maharashtra & another” reported in AIR 2001 SC 2023, which has arisen out of the judgment passed in Criminal Application No.1740/2000 by the Division Bench of this Court. In para 9 of the said judgment it is observed thus- “Mr.Lalit next submitted that once bail has been granted it should not be canceled unless there is evidence that the conditions of bail are being infringed. In support of this submission he relies upon the authority in the case of Ram V. State of Haryana, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349. In this case it has been held that rejection of bail in a non- {4} bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. It has been held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. It has been held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly 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. It is, however to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be canceled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected.” 4. Relying on the above observations of the Apex Court, it is urged by the learned APP that while passing the orders on the bail application, which are impugned in these applications, the learned trial judge has not considered the material on record and without appreciation of the statements of the witnesses, granted bail to the present respondents. It is urged that the learned trial judge has not given any reasons while granting bail to the accused persons. The said applications are simply allowed on the ground of parity only. In the premise, it is urged that the order passed by the trial court while allowing the applications, be set aside and the bail granted in favour of the 35 accused in connection with the aforesaid be cancelled. 5. It is urged on behalf of the respondents, who are enlarged {5} on bail, that in view of the order passed by this Court in group of applications, by which 12 applicants are granted bail in connection with the above offence, on the ground of parity they are released on bail. Apart from the merit it is also urged that there are no allegations in respect of misuse of the liberty granted to the accused. It is also informed that now the pretrial formalities are over, charge is already framed and the trial is scheduled for recording of evidence, which is likely to be commenced by the end of this month, probably on 30 th November 2009. 6. Considering these submissions, this Court has to take into consideration two propositions; firstly, whether the liberty granted to the accused is misused by them and secondly whether any patent error is committed by the trial court while releasing the accused on bail. Neither there is any allegation in the application for cancellation of bail nor any such material is brought before this Court to show that the accused have misused their liberty. Secondly, perusal of the impugned order shows that the accused are enlarged on bail on the ground of parity with the accused who are released on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.06.2009. It is not disputed that the order passed by this Court on 30.06.2009 enlarging 12 accused came to be challenged before the Apex Court on the ground that the order is not passed by considering the material placed before this Court. The fact remains that the order passed by this Court is still in force. So far as impugned orders are concerned the same are passed on the ground of parity on the basis of the order passed by this Court on 30.06.2009. If these application are allowed by the trial court on the ground of parity and the same was considered on the basis of material placed before the trial court then it cannot be said {6} that the trial court has committed any error while granting bail to the accused. It is to be noted from the impugned orders that case of 4 persons, whose names and specific role mentioned in the papers of investigation, it is observed that so far as case of those 4 accused is concerned, the same cannot be treated at par with the other accused and they cannot be granted bail on the ground of parity. If this is the case, then it cannot be said that the order passed by the trial court is passed without considering any material placed before it and without application of mind. Thus, in substance, no perversity is found with the orders passed by the trial court and hence these applications, which are sans merits, are rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln2604-09