1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2709 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 1999 Vinod s/o Gangulalji Bhutada APPLICANT V E R S U S Kalyan s/o Bansidhar Renge and another RESPONDENTS ... Mr. M. S. Indani, Advocate for the applicant Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State ... CORAM :NARESH H. PATIL & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 16TH OCTOBER,2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. This application is filed by applicant Vinod s/o Gangulalji Bhutada, Resident of Mondha, Parbhani, seeking cancellatiion of bail of appellant/accused Kalyan s/o Bansidhar Renge, in 2 Criminal Appeal No.153 of 1999. The appellant Kalyan s/o Bansidhar Renge was convicted by the trial Court for committing an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. His appeal came to be admitted by the Division Bench of this Court on 13th April, 1999. By an order dated 6th May, 1999, this Court released the appellant on bail. The contention of the applicant Vinod Bhutada is that the complaint was lodged against respondent No. 1/appellant on 28th February, 2008, and, an offence was registered against the respondent in Kotwali Police Station, Parbhani, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. It is further alleged that the respondent has political background, therefore, the police authorities have certain restrictions to take action against the respondent. It is alleged that the respondent is a political figure having criminal record, is misusing his liberty and committing offences, while he is on bail. It is further alleged that he has indulged in 3 antisocial and immoral activities. 3. Affidavit in reply is filed by respondent Kalyan Renge, wherein he repudiated the allegations. In substance, it is contended by deponent that earlier real brother of present applicant, namely Papalal Bhutada had filed Criminal Application No. 1425 of 2008 for cancellation of bail, on the basis of crime No. 32 of 2008 registered on 28th August, 2008. It is further contended by the deponent that this Court had expressed that applicant had no locus standi to file such application, and this Court dismissed said matter. At that time, the applicant Papalal Bhutada had prayed for withdrawal of the said application. On the request of the Advocate, appearing for Papalal Bhutada, this Court permitted the applicant to withdraw said application and disposed of the application by order dated 5th June, 2008 (Coram : N.V. Dabholkar, J. and S.S. Bora, J.). The deponent submits that the applicant had deliberately suppressed the fact that Papalal, his real brother filed earlier application for the same cause. It is further contended by the counsel 4 appearing for respondent Mr. V. D. Salunke that this application is deliberately filed, as wife of respondent was the candidate for the recently concluded Assembly elections for the seat of Legislative Assembly. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the applicant, who is brother of Papalal, has suppressed the facts from this Court and has filed this application deliberately to harass the respondent, and false statements are made on affidavit. There were no such crimes registered against the respondent since he was released on bail in the year 1999. 4. It is an admitted fact that a civil suit filed by the mother of the applicant Vinod Bhutada against respondent Kalyan Renge is pending and proceedings in the Civil Court are going on. 5. We had directed the A.P.P. to procure the report regarding allegations made against the respondent by the applicant that various offences are registered in the police station against the respondent and also to verify regarding the conduct 5 of the respondent while he is availing the liberty, in view of grant of bail by this Court. Consequent upon the directions, the learned A.P.P. Mr. Sonwane placed on record report submitted by the Police Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, Parbhani dated 15th October, 2009. It seems that in one case F.I.R. is registered on the complaint of Papalal Bhutada, investigation was conducted, and thereafter, the police treated it as non-cognizable offence, and closed the file. It is specifically contended by the Police Inspector that there is no offence registered against the respondent in the Police Station Kotwali, Parbhani. The report is taken on record and marked as ‘X’. 6. In the beginning, when the matter was called out, the learned counsel Mr. Indani appearing for the applicant prayed for withdrawal of this application. 7. We find that the applicant Vinod Bhutada ought to have fairly disclosed about filing of earlier application for cancellation of bail by his 6 real brother Papalal Bhutada. Fairness to the Court by litigants and lawyers is paramount necessity which helps in imparting justice in transparent and fair manner. Repeated applications for the same cause of action are not to be encouraged, unless a cause is available or some special exceptional circumstance is to be brought to the notice of the Court. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, litigant may still approach to the Court. In the facts of this case, we find that earlier, the brother of the applicant had filed an application for cancellation of bail, which was allowed to be withdrawn. In view of the material placed on record, we do not find that the applicant, who though is not party to the proceedings of the appeal, has made out prima facie case for ascertaining the request made by him for cancellation of bail. 8. It is settled principle of law that grant of bail is one thing and cancellation is quite another. Overwhelming grounds sufficient to justify cancellation of bail are required to be made out for 7 the said purpose. The fact cannot be unnoticed that the respondent was released on bail in the year 1999 and since last 10 years, except complaint of brother of applicant by name Papalal, no other complaint was registered at the police station. 9. The probable reply to the said observation from the applicant is that as respondent is political figure and resourceful person, the police authorities are under pressure not to register any crime against the respondent. 10. Assuming the allegations to be true, then we do not find that a citizen is remedyless if police ignores or refuses to look into the complaint. No such case is made out before this Court even on that ground. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. V. D. Salunke has referred to the observations made by our High Court in the reported case 2009 All MR (Cri) 1444 (Vicky @ Victor Julias Manthera and 8 others versus State of Maharashtra). We have perused the said case. 12. We, therefore, reject the request made by the learned counsel for the applicant to withdraw the application. We find that the applicant has failed to make out case for consideration of this application. We caution the applicant that in future abundant care is required to be taken before filing any proceedings in connection with the Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1999. Therefore, Criminal Application No. 2709 of 2009 stands dismissed with costs. The applicant shall deposit costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) with the Registry of this Court within four weeks. The costs, if deposited, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent No. 1. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Mr. V. D. Salunke submitted that it would be appropriate if the costs is directed to be deposited with the Legal Services Authority. We accept above submission of learned counsel, and direct that the applicant shall deposit amount of costs with the Legal Services Authority, 9 High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, and, in case, the costs is not deposited by the applicant with the Legal Services Authority within four weeks, the Registry shall take appropriate steps in accordance with the law to recover the amount of costs. [SHRIHARI P.DAWARE, J] [NARESH H. PATIL, J] srm/criapln2709.09