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 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4129 of 2006. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4129 of 2006. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4129 of 2006. The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant versus Gulam Nabi Jail Ahmed Ansari ..Respondent Mr.K.V.Saste for the Applicant State None for the Respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. P.C. 1. The respondent was granted anticipatory bail on 29.7.2006 by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane. The State did not like the fact of passing of Order in favour of the applicant as according to the State the allegations against the respondent were not considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the proper perspective and hence after about four months i.e. in the month of November 2006 this application came to be filed. Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent which is returned unserved. Further steps are not taken to serve through Court. However, affidavit is filed by the Public Prosecutor showing that the acknowledgment is signed by the respondent No.1. In the substance the State wants to show that the -2- copy of this application was served upon the respondent. 2. After having heard learned Advocate Mr.Saste appearing on behalf of the State, I am inclined to reject the application on two counts. The application in support of bail was granted in July 2006 and that order is sought to be set aside by proceeding filed after about a period of four months. This delay itself is fatal to the State. Even otherwise, considering the merits of the matter, the applicant is said to have instigated certain persons to pelt stones in the direction of the police staff who were on bandobast duty and according to the State two police constables died. The State also wanted to point out the antecedents of the present applicant and that is how the present application is pressed. 3. After having understood the alleged role against the present respondent, I am not inclined to grant relief to the State. In my view, in a peculiar case like this, the role of the applicant is limited so as to instigate the mob to pelt stones. The question is what is the action of each -3- of the person who participated in the mob. The fact of death of two police constables cannot be fixed solely on the respondent and that the trial Judge has considered the case in proper perspective of the matter. In my view, considering all the facts, the case cannot be considered. Hence the application is rejected. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)