1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3877 OF 2007 Laxman Babaji Bandpatte .. Applicant. Vs. 1.State of Maharashtra .. 2.Maruti Khandu Ambure .. Respondents. Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State. Mr.P.M.Jadhav for respondent no.2. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 22nd June, 2009 P.C. Heard Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Jadhav, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr.Saste, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking cancellation of bail that was granted to respondent no.2 vide order dated 9.8.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 31.12.2006 respondent No.2 and ten others committed murder of Santosh Bandpatte and attempted to commit murder of the complainant – Laxman Babaji Bandpatte. All the accused are accordingly charged for an offence punishable under section 302, 307, 324, 341, 147, 148, 149, 504 of IPC and section 135 of the Bombay 2 Police Act. 4. The offence took place on 31.12.2006 at 7.30 pm. According to the prosecution, initially respondent No.2 assaulted the applicant/complainant with sword on his head. Thereafter, respondent no.2 called other accused and they all encircled the complainant with the weapons in their hands. As a result thereof the applicant started shouting for help. The deceased-Santosh and one Anil rushed to the scene of offence. When the accused persons saw Santosh, they all, including respondent no.2 assaulted Santosh with the weapons in their hands. Santosh succumbed to the injuries. It appears that all other accused were already enlarged on bail. Respondent no.2, however, was absconding. He presented himself before the court on 8.8.2007 i.e. after about eight months, and the learned Judge granted bail on 9.8.2007 on the ground that all other accused were already granted bail. 5. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the role of respondent no.2 is distinguishable from the role of other accused, apart from the fact that he was absconding for eight months. The alleged incident started with the applicant assaulting the complainant for which section 307 of IPC has been applied. He submitted that the learned Judge did not apply his mind to the facts of the present case in proper perspective and wrongly granted bail to respondent no.2 on the 3 ground that all other accused are released on bail. The learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration that respondent no.2. was absconding for almost eight months after the alleged incident. 6. Mr.Jadhav, learned counsel for respondent no.2, on the other hand vehemently submitted that the order of bail cannot be stated to be perverse and based on erroneous consideration. He further submitted that after respondent no.2 was enlarged on bail he did not abuse the liberty nor did he make any attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice and, therefore, the bail is not liable to be cancelled. He also invited my attention to the FIR and submitted that there is absolutely no difference in the role of the present applicant and other accused, who were already granted bail and, therefore, the order of bail cannot be faulted. 7. It is well settled that grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. But the Supreme Court in Puran v. Rambilas A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2023 has observed that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of adminstration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due 4 course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The Supreme Court further observed that one such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. 8. Thus, if the order granting bail is perverse or is based on erroneous consideration or is based ignoring material and evidence on record and that to without giving any reasons, such an order would be against principles of law and, therefore, interest of justice would require that such perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. In the instant case the learned Judge has not given any reasons for enlarging respondent no.2 on bail. The learned Judge ought to have seen whether role of the applicant was more severe than other accused. Moreover, there was no reason to pass an order of bail so hurriedly without giving any reasons for the same in a serious crime of murder. 9. In the circumstances this application is allowed. The order dated 9.8.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.24 of 2007 at Exhibit-16, releasing respondent no.2 on bail, is set aside. The application at Exhibit-16 in Sessions Case No.24 of 2007 is restored to file. The court below shall consider the application at 5 Exhibit-16 afresh on merits and in the light of the observations made in this order. Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender on or before 10.7.2009, failing which the police to take appropriate steps to arrest him in the aforementioned case arising from C.R.No.141 of 2006 of Akluj police station, District Solapur. The trial court shall hear the application for bail afresh only after respondent no.2 surrenders as aforementioned. The trial is expedited. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)