1 Kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1192/2009 Manoj Kumar Purnavasi Harijan. ....Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent ............. Mr.K.M.Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for the State. ............. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. Dated :- 08th May, 2009 PC :- 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2 On 30.01.2009 the learned Sessions Judge granted bail in favour of the Petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Petitioner could not avail of the order granting bail. 3 On 12.03.2009, when the case came up before the learned Sessions Judge, it was found that the Petitioner/accused had not complied with the earlier order of payment of costs. A contention was raised by the Petitioner that he had paid the amount of costs to his Advocate who had not deposited the same. An adjournment was sought by the Petitioner on the ground that his Advocate was not present. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge imposed further costs. The learned Sessions Judge has directed that a show-cause notice should be issued to the Petitioner as to why the bail granted in favour of the Petitioner should not be cancelled. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to stay the order granting bail. 4 The short question is whether the learned Sessions Judge could have stayed the order granting bail. As a case was made out by the Petitioner for grant of bail under 2 Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the Petitioner. It is true that the proceedings could have been initiated for cancellation of bail on various grounds permissible under law, but the order granting bail could not have been stayed. Even assuming that the Petitioner had availed of bail and he had committed serious breach of the terms of bail, only action which could have been taken was of initiating the proceedings for cancellation of bail. In my view, there was no occasion to grant stay of operation of the order granting bail only because the Petitioner could not avail of the order granting bail. Hence, that part of the impugned order dated 12.03.2009 by which the order granting bail is stayed, deserves to be set aside. However, the proceedings of the show cause notice for cancellation of bail shall go on. 5 Hence, I pass the following order:- (i) That part of the impugned order dated 12.03.2009 by which operation of the order granting bail in favour of the Petitioner is stayed, is hereby set aside. (ii)It is, however, clarified that in terms of the show cause notice issued by the learned Sessions Judge, the Petitioner will have to show cause as to why the bail should not be cancelled. (iii)All the contentions on merits in that behalf are kept open. (iv)The petition is disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE