1 Cri-A-490-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMNAL APPLICATION NO. 490 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant/Appellant (Orig. complainant) vs. Baburao Doulu Patil ... Respondent (Orig. accused) Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP for the applicant/appellant - State. Mr.Anand S.Patil, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 19th September, 2011. P.C. 1. The application is filed by the State seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent in Crime No.32/2010 registered with Gaganbawada Police Station, District Kolhapur on the allegation that the respondent as a Gram Sevak had misappropriated amount of Rs.4,36,203/-. 2. Heard. Perused the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by this Court. The order reveals that the learned Counsel for the applicant had stated before the Court that in order to show his bonafides, the applicant would deposit amount of Rs.4 2 Cri-A-490-11.odt lakh. In view of this statement, the anticipatory bail was granted with condition that the applicant shall deposit amount of Rs.2 lakh within two weeks and further amount of Rs.2 lakh within our weeks before the trial Court. The second condition was that he shall make himself available to police for interrogation as and when required. According to the prosecution, neither amount has been deposited nor he attended the police station when he was called. The respondent/accused is present before the Court with his Counsel. The learned Counsel, on instructions, admits that amount has not been deposited. According to him, he is not in a position to deposit the amount. It appears that he had no intention to deposit the amount, but only to secure anticipatory bail he made a statement and got the order. The order reveals that the learned Judge while passing the order did not consider the merits of the case, but granted anticipatory bail only because the applicant was willing to deposit the amount. As he has failed to deposit the amount and he also did not attend the police station inspite of notice from the police, he has not complied with both the conditions. 3. Therefore, anticipatory bail granted to the respondent in Crime No.32 of 2010 on 17.1.2011 stands cancelled. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)