-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.3126 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO.898 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Ajay Ramchandra Kokare ..Respondent ... Mr.A.R.Patil APP for the Applicant-State None present for the Respondent though served. ... CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & CORAM: S.B.MHASE & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : MARCH 05, 2007 DATE : MARCH 05, 2007 DATE : MARCH 05, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. None appears for the Respondent-original Accused No.1 though served. 2. By judgment and order dated 28th/29th September, 2001 in Sessions Case no. 1473 of 1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai convicted the Respondent-accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. -2- Being aggrieved thereby, the Respondent-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.898 of 2001 before this Court. The said Appeal came to be admitted. 3. Thereafter, Criminal Application No.4150 of 2001 for bail came to be preferred by the Respondent. By order dated 11th February, 2002, the Respondent-accused came to be released on bail. In the order dated 11th February, 2002 while granting bail, a specific condition was imposed on the Respondent-accused that he shall report once in a month on the first day of every month between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon before the Incharge Gavdevi Police Station. 4. The State has preferred this application for cancellation of bail mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that while granting bail to the Respondent-accused, a specific condition was imposed that he shall report once in a month on the first day of every month between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon before the Incharge Gavdevi Police Station. However, ever since the Respondent came to be released on bail, he has not reported to the Police -3- Station as per the condition imposed on him by this Court. The second ground on which the bail granted to the Respondent is sought to be cancelled, is that during the period that the Respondent was on bail, the Respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The said case is registered at Gavdevi Police Station as C.R.No.189 of 2007. 5. The learned APP has submitted that the Respondent has flouted the condition imposed on him by this Court and he has abused the liberty granted to him, hence, this is a fit case to cancel the bail. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Aslam Aslam Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported Babalal Desai Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported Babalal Desai Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 3712, in 1992 Cri.L.J. 3712, in 1992 Cri.L.J. 3712, wherein it is observed that:- . "The order for release on bail may however, be cancelled under Section 437(5) or S. 439(2). Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, interference or attempt to -4- interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to him. . In the said case in para 11, it is further observed that: . "the said order can be cancelled under sub-section (5) of Section 437 or sub-section (2) of Section 439 on considerations relevant for cancellation of an order thereunder. As stated in Raghubir Singh’s Raghubir Singh’s Raghubir Singh’s case (1987 Cri.L.J. 1987 Cri.L.J. 1987 Cri.L.J. 157) 157) 157) the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Section 437 (1) or (2) or 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in -5- similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive...." . "Generally 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 course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted abuse of the liberty granted abuse of the liberty granted to him. to him. to him. The due administration of justice may be interfered with by intimidating or suborning witnesses, by interfering with investigation, by creating or causing disappearance of evidence etc. The course of justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by -6- leaving the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties." [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Puran V. Puran V. Puran V. Rambilas and another, Rambilas and another, Rambilas and another, reported in (2001) 6 S.C.C. (2001) 6 S.C.C. (2001) 6 S.C.C. 338, 338, 338, has 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." . In the case of Raghubir Singh and others Vs. Raghubir Singh and others Vs. Raghubir Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar State of Bihar State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987 SC 149, AIR 1987 SC 149, AIR 1987 SC 149, the Supreme Court has held that: . "Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course -7- of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to him.........." . "The course of justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by leaving the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts." . "In such case, the prosecution may seek to have bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds with the belief that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and to commit him to custody." 7. Thus, from the above decisions, it is clear that one of the grounds for cancellation of bail is abuse of concession granted to the accused in any manner. -8- In the present case, the Respondent has clearly abused the concession granted to him i.e. after he was released on bail, he has again committed offence under Section 307 of IPC. Besides this, as stated earlier, he has also flouted the condition of reporting imposed on him by this Court. 8. Looking to the above facts, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to cancel the bail granted to the Respondent-accused. Hence, bail granted to the Respondent by order dated 11th February, 2002 in Criminal Application No. 4150 of 2001 is hereby cancelled. The Respondent-accused to surrender to his bail bonds. 9. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.B.MHASE, J.]