[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1999 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Hussain Mohammad Shattaf ..Respondent ... Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for the State Mr.Shirish Gupte senior counsel along with Mr.M.S.Mohite Advocate for Respondent ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State and the learned counsel for Respondent-original accused no.1. 2. By order dated 16.4.2007 the Respondent-original accused no.1 came to be granted bail by this Court in CR No. 46 of 2006 of Lonavala Police Station. The said case is under Section 302 of IPC. The applicant is seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent. 3. It may be stated here that there is no eye-witness to the murder nor is there any recovery at the instance of the respondent. Cancellation of bail is sought on three grounds. First ground is [-2-] that after the order dated 16.4.2007, the Respondent was subjected to brain mapping test and the brain mapping test shows that the Respondent had Experiential Knowledge related to the accused’s relationship with captain Singh in terms of accused coming back from Dubai, Wahida wife of accused introducing captain to him, accused meeting captain frequently and both of them drinking together. Experiential Knowledge was also seen on probes related to Hussain’s visit to captain’s house on the day of the murder for a discussion with an architect who were supposed to come there to purchase some materials Hussain wanted to sell. Hussain was found to have Experiential Knowledge of captain having asked him to stay back for dinner and leaving captain’s residence after dinner and certain other aspects relating to the crime. However, in the very same report, it is further observed that however, the different possibilities of motivation behind the murder tested did not show Experiential Knowledge indicating that the hypotheses formulated based on the information provided by the Investigating Officers were not confirmed. Further, the test has not given information on the way the murder could have been [-3-] planned. 4. Even considering the result of the test, it cannot be said that any fresh reliable material came to light after the bail application was decided. While deciding the bail application, the Court had considered the fact that the respondent-accused and the deceased were acquainted with one another and they used to go to the house of the deceased. In fact, the Court has also observed that the only material against the accused is that the deceased was last seen with the accused i.e. the respondent and his wife were last seen in the bungalow of the deceased at night and in the next day morning, the deceased was found dead. Except this circumstance of "last seen" there is no other admissible material against the respondent even today. 5. The second ground on which cancellation of bail has been sought is that the wife of the applicant had torn some pages from the register of the watchman. First of all, this act is not attributed to the respondent but it is attributable to his wife Wahida. Wahida the wife of the accused had [-4-] already been granted anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the anticipatory bail came to be cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge, hence, Writ Petition No.461 of 2008 was preferred before this Court. By order dated 15.4.2008, this Court observed that there was no need for custodial interrogation of Wahida. As stated earlier, the said act has not been done by the respondent but it was done by his wife Wahida. The Court in the order dated 15.4.2008 has clearly observed that custody of Wahida would not be necessary, hence, I do not think that this is a good ground for cancellation of bail of the respondent. 6. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant has been causing obstruction in the investigation of this case. As far as this aspect is concerned, the learned APP has admitted that the investigation is over. Moreover, it is seen that no witness has complained that the respondent has threatened him or that any witness apprehends any danger from the respondent. The applicant has not flouted any of the conditions imposed on him by this Court. It is not even the case of the prosecution that the applicant will abscond and will not be available [-5-] for trial. The above mentioned three grounds are the only grounds on which cancellation of bail is sought. It is well settled that considerations for bail and cancellation of bail are entirely different. In view of the above discussion, I do not think that this is a fit case to cancel the bail. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]