IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 291 OF 2009 Sabah Adnan Sami Khan ..... ..... ...Applicant V/s Adnan Sami Khan & Anr. ..... ..... ...Respondents. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. i/by Edith Dey, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.Shrihari Aney, Sr. Adv. With Mr.Vibhav Krishna & Reshant Shah i/by Juris Consillis, Adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 21st August, 2009. PC: Applicant is the wife and the respondent No.1 is the husband. The present application is filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the respondent No.1-husband. On a complaint filed by the applicant an offence came to be registered against the respondent No.1 for the commission of offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 402, 420, 498A, 506, 384 read with section 511 of IPC. This Court by an order dated 26.5.09 has granted the application moved by respondent No.1 for anticipatory bail and directed that in the event of arrest of respondent No.1 he be released on bail subject to certain conditions. By the present application the applicant contends that as the respondent No.1 has committed breach of some of the conditions subject to which anticipatory bail was granted the same be cancelled. Two fold submission are made on behalf of the applicant viz; (i) that the respondent No.1 has intimidated one witness by name Safia Iqubal Shaikh who was working as maid servant with respondent No.1 and has tried to pressurize her by terminating her from service; (ii) that despite direction from this Court respondent No.1 did not deposit his passport immediately 1 with the investigating officer. Touching the first ground the submission is that one Sofia Iqubal Shaikh was working as maid servant at the residence of respondent No.1 since last few years. She has been cited as witness by the present applicant/complainant and that the respondent No.1 has tried to pressurize the said witness by intimidating her by removing her from service. It is submitted that the said witness was working as maid servant and was in need of a job to support her family and hence her termination from the service would tantamount to intimidation and putting pressure upon the witness. In so far as the other ground is concerned about failure on the part of respondent No.1 to deposit the passport immediately with the investigating officer it is submitted that the 1st respondent had left India for Pakistan on 22.6.09 and had come back to India on 29.6.09 but did not immediately deposit the passport and has thus committed breach of the condition stipulated by this Court while granting him anticipatory bail. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the present application has been filed vindictively and malafidely solely with a view to harass the 1st respondent. It is submitted that relations of the applicant and respondent No.1 are strained on account of matrimonial dispute giving rise to various proceedings before different Forum and the main cause for the parties to resort to litigation happens to be five flats, the ownership where of is claimed by both the parties to the detriment of interest of the other. 2. Dealing with the first ground of attempt to pressurize the witness it is to be seen that this Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondent No.1 on 26.5.09. He had gone abroad on 28.5.09. He returned to India on 5.6.09. The witness viz. maid servant came to be terminated on 9.6.09 and the said witness filed NC complaint on 13.6.09 wherein grievance is made that she was intimidated, coerced and pressurized with a view to force her to withdraw her statement and was terminated from service without payment of due salary. 2 Having regard to the dates set out herein above it can be seen that the respondent No.1 was in India from the date of passing of anticipatory bail order till the termination of service only for a period of three days. The explanation of respondent No.1 in regard to termination of service of maid servant is that respondent No.1 had engaged professional house keeping agency for cleaning and maintaining the house property and hence did not require any maid servant. It is not in dispute that there is no maid servant at the residence of the respondent No.1at present and all the employees have been terminated. The other employees appear to have been terminated prior to passing of anticipatory bail order. Perusal of NC complaint filed by the witness reveals that the complaint lacks the material particulars in regard to the date, time and place when respondent No.1 has allegedly intimidated or pressurized the witness. The NC complaint has been filed after termination of service of the witness. There is no other material to substantiate the contention of the applicant that the respondent No.1 tried to intimidate or coerce the witness barring word against word. By filing affidavit in reply allegations in regard to intimidation and coercion are denied. To me it does not appear to be probable that a person who is desirous of winning over the witness either by luring or by pressurizing it would have recourse to termination of service. It is obvious that after the termination respondent No. 1 would loose contact with the witness and will have no access to the witness. It appears to be improbable that the termination of maid servant who happens to be a witness was either by way of intimidation or coercion or pressurizing tactics. 3. Having regard to other ground about failure to deposit the passport immediately by respondent No.1 it is sufficient to observe that respondent No. 1 had gone abroad after passing of the order granting anticipatory bail on three occasions. Twice he had deposited passport promptly where as there has 3 occasioned some delay on one occasion. Respondent No.1 has tried to explain the reason for the delay in depositing the passport. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the explanation of respondent No.1 I am convinced that there has been substantial compliance of the direction issued by this Court in regard to deposit to passport. Even as of now the passports are deposited with the investigating officer. The respondent No.1 cannot be deprived of his personal liberty unless and until there is sufficient justification for so ordering. In the facts and circumstances of the present case I do not find that there is any justification to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.1. Hence application stands rejected. 21.8.2009. 4