APPA. 589-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 589 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1121 OF 2004 Eknath Daulu Sathe ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents *** Mr. Manoj Patil, for the Applicant. Dr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Anand Patil i/b Shekhar A. Ingawale, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 PC : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned APP appearing for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. Respondent No. 2/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I. P. Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal, and during pendency of the appeal, the sentence imposed upon him was suspended and he was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with like APPA. 589-11 - 2 - surety. Condition to attend the Karvir Police Station once in a month was also imposed upon him, by an order passed by this Court on 22nd December, 2004. 3. Now, the applicant who is real brother of the deceased is seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.2, on the ground that respondent No.2 has been misusing the liberty granted to him and that he has been threatening the applicant. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is having a grudge against the present applicant and is threatening the applicant that he would be taking revenge against the present applicant. 4. In support of this contention, it was submitted that father of respondent No. 2 is also complaining against respondent No. 2 and that his father has also written application to the police authorities to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2. 5. The affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Karveer Police Station shows that the police authorities did not view the matter to be a serious one. It is also revealed that father of respondent No. 2 to whom a reference has been made by the applicant, is actually a step father of respondent No. 2 and that the step father of respondent No. 2 has been residing together after the release of respondent No.2 on bail. 6. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Karvir Police Station indicates that the investigating agency is not seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2. It appears that some complaints were made to the police, pursuant to which APPA. 589-11 - 3 - Chapter Proceedings were initiated against respondent No.2 and a bond of good behaviour has been obtained from him. It has also been stated that a search of the house of respondent No. 2 was taken, but no weapon or incriminating articles were found from his residence. There is no prayer of the prosecution to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No. 2. The allegation in that regard has been made only by the brother of the victim and by the step father of respondent No.2. 7. When the Court has found the case of respondent No. 2 fit for release on bail pending the appeal, it would require extremely, strong and convincing reasons for the cancellation of bail granted to him. Moreover, the primary duty in that regard would be of the State and until the State feels that the liberty granted to him should be curtailed, or it would be dangerous to permit him to continue to be on bail, the court should be slow in cancellation of bail. Here, the allegations made against respondent No. 2 have not been supported by any positive material. The person making allegations can certainly be attributed a motive for making such allegations and obviously the applicant would not like that the person who is supposedly the murderer of his brother is enlarged on bail. Similarly, there appears to be obvious dispute between respondent No. 2 and his step father. When the State, in spite of being aware of the allegations, does not seem to be interested in getting the bail granted to respondent No.2 cancelled, it is not proper that on such allegations which have not been substantiated, the bail granted to respondent No. 2 should be cancelled. APPA. 589-11 - 4 - 8. Significantly, the step father of respondent No. 2 is said to be the surety for respondent No. 2. He cannot be compelled to continue as surety for respondent No. 2, and therefore, obviously the he would be at liberty to seek discharge, but admittedly, the same has not been done so far by the father of respondent No. 2. 9. While granting bail to the applicant, it was observed by this Court that he was on bail during trial and that he had not misutilized the bail. 10. Upon going through the material placed beforre us and after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, it appears that imposing certain stringent conditions on respondent No. 2 would meet the ends of justice. No case for cancellation of bail granted to him, has been made out. 11. In the result, criminal application is rejected. 12. Respondent No. 2 shall, however, report to the Karvir Police Station every day for a period of six months from today and thereafter once in every month, till the disposal of the appeal. 13. Hearing of the criminal appeal is expedited. Criminal application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [A. M. THIPSAY, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]