1 Criminal Appl.No.3188 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3188 OF 2011 Vimal Namdeo Ghule APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Patil, learned counsel for the applicant. Ms.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned A.P.P. for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent no.2 to respondent no.14, who are the office bearers of Jai Mata Di Urban Co-op-Society, Bhusawal, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Application No.444/2011 as in the private complaint lodged by the present applicant in the Court of J.M.F.C. Bhusawal, vide Criminal Misc.Appl.No.157/2011, an order of investigation u/s. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was passed on 06/04/2011. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant. Perused the complaint lodged by the applicant, so also the impugned order passed by the 2 Criminal Appl.No.3188 of 2011 Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. It nowhere mentioned in the application that subsequent to the order of anticipatory bail was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, respondents no.2 to 14 have taken any disadvantage of the said order, then before issuance of notice to these respondents, a question require consideration whether there is any error apparent on the face of the order. On perusal of the order, particularly para no.3 of the impugned order indicates that the applicant had earlier approached Consumer’s Forum for non-payment of her amount deposited in the said society and the Consumer’s Forum had granted relief in her favour. She had also moved for execution granted by the Consumer’s Forum. It appears that the relief prayed is yet to be satisfied in the execution proceeding, and to move this application for cancellation of bail, is one of the attempt of earlier execution. As I do not find any perversity in the order impugned, so also there are no allegations that these respondents no.2 to 14 have taken any disadvantage of the situation after they were released on pre-arrest bail, application being sans any merits, stands rejected, even without issuing notice to the respondents. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.appl.3188-11