1 Appln 5288-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5288 OF 2010 Imam Hassan Siddique .Applicant V/s. Abdul Haq Mohammed Yunus Ansari .Respondents & ors Mr.R.B.Upadhyay i/b. Law Competere Consultus, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent - State Mr.Sudeep Pasbola with Ms.Rawate, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 3RD DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. . This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai by Order dated 24th December, 2008 to some officers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that since bail was granted by practising fraud on the Court and suppressing material facts, the order is 2 Appln 5288-10 nullity and therefore, the learned Counsel for the applicant addressed me at more than adequate length. In fact, after completion of investigation, police have filed a report exonerating all the respondents. Therefore, hearing of the application is mere academic exercise. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in fact, the applicant was beaten by the respondents on 17th December, 2008 and he had been referred to J.J.Hospital from where he has been given Injury Certificate. This Injury Certificate shows that the applicant had complained of punch on nose, chest, abdomen etc. No fracture or injury was detected on the examination by the medical officer. There was a complaint of pain. Though it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that, that the fact of applicant's suffering injury has been suppressed before the Sessions Court, the Court had considered this aspect. The order re-counts applicant's 3 Appln 5288-10 case that he had been beaten by the respondents. It is the allegation of the respondents that the case was filed against them because they were the officers of the Municipal Corporation investigating into illegalities of the applicant. There had been previous inspection of the applicant's factory and the applicant had also filed case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the officers of the MCGM. No case for cancellation of anticipatory bail is made out since the order is not vitiated by any fraud & in any case, police have already filed a final report in the matter. 2. In view of this, Criminal Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)