1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1779 OF 2010 ( Vijay Madhukar Chaudhary Vs. State of Maharashtra PSO PS Kharangana Distt. Wardha & 13 Ors. ) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri M. P. Kariya Adv for applicant. Shri S. S. Doifode APP for non applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 9th JUNE, 2011. . This is an application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for canceling the bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Wardha. The offence bearing Crime No. 48 of 2009 was registered in Police Station Kharangana, district Wardha under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Respondents 2 to 14 have been arrayed as the accused in the said crime. They were arrested and produced before the concerned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate released them on bail. The present applicant has filed Writ Petition in this Court bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 436 of 2009 alleging that the proper investigation was not carried out. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court offence which was initially registered under Section 324 Indian Penal Code was converted into offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Accused/respondents then filed a fresh bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. After hearing the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 2 22.06.2010 directed their release on their furnishing bail bonds. Taking exception to this order the present application has been filed. Grounds put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application are: Bail was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by considering the irrelevant material and there was no application of mind. Respondents/accused have committed serious offence of causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon. The Investigation Officer was unfair with the victim since inception and because of that applicant was required to approach this Court seeking necessary directions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge ignored the nature of injuries sustained by Purushottam-the brother of the applicant. Considering the previous conduct of the respondent, there is a possibility of they jumping bail and would indulge in threatening the witnesses. On all these grounds he submits that the bail granted to the respondents 2 to 14 may be cancelled. Respondents 2 to 14 have filed reply denying allegations levelled by the applicant against them. It is their case that the investigation has been properly conducted without committing latches. No favour has been shown to the respondents. After the incident they were available for investigation. After they were arrested, they applied for bail and were released on bail. After the offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code was added in the crime registered against them, they again moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha. This chronology of events according to learned counsel for the respondents, points out that the respondents never intended to misuse the liberty granted to them nor there are chances of they jumping bail. 3 The principles on which the bail order can be cancelled are well settled: " Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." Absolutely there is no material available on the record to show that the accused/respondents 2 to 14 will not be available for trial. It is true that victim Purushottam had sustained grievous injuries in the nature of contusion, lacerated wound on head and fracture of right shoulder. The past events like the police initially registered the offence under Section 324 and thereafter in pursuance with the directions of this Court adding Section 326 Indian Penal Code cannot be a ground to claim cancellation of bail. Even assuming that at the inception an offence would have been registered under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, the Additional Sessions Judge was not precluded from entertaining the bail application. Existence of animosity between the parties cannot also be a ground to consider the cancellation of bail. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in this application. Application is rejected. JUDGE svk