1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 15 of 2011 (Smt. Amrin Kausar W/o. Tausif Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. V.D. Muley, Advocate for the applicant. Miss Sandhya Maniyar, Advocate for respondent no.2 CORAM : M. N. GILANI, J. DATE : 13 th JULY, 2011. Heard. This is an application filed under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 by this Court (Coram : P .D. Kode, J) on February 3rd, 2011. Offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is registered against respondent no.2 vide Crime No. 615/2010 with Police Station Wardha. Therefore, respondent no.2 had applied to this Court under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. While allowing his application, this Court directed respondent no.2 to observe certain conditions like, to keep away himself from Dr. Zakir Husain Colony, Ward No. 28, Wardha. It is alleged that on 14/02/2011, respondent no.2 entered the house of applicant and threatened her. Her father lodged report in the Police Station Wardha alleging 2 that on 14/02/2011, respondent no. 2 entered in his house when the applicant was alone present there. He abused her in a filthy language and threatened her. He also threatened that if she would report to police, he would set her and her family members on fire. Respondent no.2 controverted the allegations. It is stated that no incident, as alleged, did occur. According to him, he has been obeying the conditions imposed upon him by this Court. To support his contention, he relied upon the certain documents. It is pertinent to note that after the alleged incident dated 14/02/2011, the applicant did not go to the Police Station. She was also not carried to the Police Station. In stead of she lodging report in the Police Station, her father Mohammad Husain lodged report. Admittedly, no action has been taken by the Police. The report (Annexure-III) is silent about gathering of neighbours etc. when the incident was going on. It was 7:30 p.m. when the incident occurred. Therefore, it is not a case that all persons in the vicinity were asleep. Respondent no.2 on solemn affirmation had denied about his alleged visit to the house of the applicant. According to him, he is residing at Pulgaon and thus he had no occasion to visit the place of residence of the applicant. It 3 is further stated that on completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. The learned counsel appearing for him stated on instructions that after submission of the charge-sheet, fresh bail bonds were furnished. On careful consideration of the allegations made in the application and reply in rebuttal, I am of the view that the prayer made by the applicant cannot be granted. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no justification for cancelling the bail. I, therefore, find no merit in this application. Application is rejected. Since it has been clarified that after filing of charge-sheet, fresh bail bonds have been furnished, the applicant would be at liberty to move the learned Magistrate for imposing any condition upon respondent no.2, whatever deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, and if permissible under the law. JUDGE *sdw