1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.282 OF 2009 Ramchandra S/o.Laxman Chavan APPLICANT VERSUS Ramesh S/o.Udaji Rathod, and others RESPONDENTS Mr.P.S.Patil, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent/State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 05/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30/12/2008 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar in bail petition no.209/2008 by which respondent no.1 to 3 were released on bail. 2. As the notice of final hearing is already issued, this application is finally heard at the stage of admission itself. 3. It is the grievance of the applicant who has moved this application u/s. 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail order passed 2 in favour of respondent no.1 to 3, on the count that there is breach of condition of bail order, and this applicant has threatened the complainant himself and his witnesses, and for this purpose, they rely on the statement of one Phulabai Chavan dated 11/01/2009 and prayed to allow the application and to cancel the bail granted in favour of respondent no.1 to 3. 4. Heard respective counsels for the parties in support of their rival contentions and perused the alleged complaint/statement recorded of the witness on which basis the present application is moved. It is brought to the notice of this Court by pointing out the contents of the alleged statement dated 11/01/2009 that this statement is of one Phulabai. This Phulabai is not a complainant in the case on which an offence was registered, in which these applicants were released on bail. On the contrary, these applicants were released on bail on the complaint lodged by one Ramchandra who is applicant in the present bail petition. There is specific allegation in that statement dated 11/01/2009 that the said Phulabai was allegedly threatened by the present first respondent to settle the dispute with this applicant. Secondly, even though this application is moved appears to be moved before the Learned J.M.F.C., no complaint is lodged with any of the Police Station neither on this complaint any cognizance was taken nor any private complaint is lodged. Here it is necessary to give the reference about lodging of private complaint as these applicants were released on bail in the complaint which was initially lodged as a private complaint before the 3 J.M.F.C. which was sent for investigation. Apart from it, the report is submitted by learned APP appearing for 4th respondent that they have not received any such complaint from the original complainant or their witnesses. In the premise, considering the submissions made across the bar, no case is made out to recall or cancel the order of bail passed in favour of respondent no.1 to 3 in exercising the powers u/s. 493(2) of The Cr.P.C. Application sans any merit, hence liable to be rejected. Accordingly the application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.282-09