1 CRI.APL NO.5390/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 925. CRI. APPLN/5390/2010 THE STATE OF MAH VS. SITARAM ANANDRAO TAMBOLKAR -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State. Mr. S.P.Urgunde, Adv., for respondent (sole). ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:7/4/2011 1. Heard. The State has urged to exercise powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Sitaram by order dt.July 16th, 2010, by learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. 2. Learned A.P.P. and Mr. Urgunde have read the statements of witnesses, namely, the son Amol Mali, brother of deceased, namely, Shivanand Sharanappa Mulje, Kisan Govind Mugne, and also of the Rickshaw plyer Mehtab Mulla. I quite see, in the statement of son of the deceased, the events prior to death of the mother are narrated which, primarily, lean to connect involvement of the accused Sitaram. In the statement of Mehtab Mulla, he has 2 CRI.APL NO.5390/2010 specifically informed that deceased, the accused/respondent Sitaram and one Kashinath were passengers in his auto rickshaw on fare of Rs.250/- and, after reaching the destination, Sitaram and the lady ( deceased) did not return while Kashinath returned in the vehicle and informed, said Mehtab Mulla that the lady has been done to death by Sitaram. Sitaram also exerted threats upon auto rickshaw driver. Said statement was dt.6th July, 2010, naturally, prior to passing of the orders by the learned Sessions Judge. It seems, it was not informed to the learned Sessions Judge coupled with the statements, referred above, which resulted in the learned Sessions Judge observing that there is no prima facie material on record showing involvement of the said applicant/accused in the alleged crime. The observations, are a betrayal to above referred statements. 3. I am informed, the charge is to be framed on 13th of April, 2011. Consequently, the worth of the above referred statement is not further dissected but the fact remains, without adverting to them the impugned order 3 CRI.APL NO.5390/2010 dt. July 16th, 2010 is recorded which, in the situation, calls for interference. The accused, therefore, needs to surrender. ORDER (a) The bail granted to the accused/respondent Sitaram Anandrao Tambolkar in Crime No.37/2010 of Bhada Police Station is cancelled/recalled. The accused/respondent Sitaram to surrender upto 11th April, 2011. (b) The learned Sessions Judge shall independently decide bail application of said Sitaram, if moved on its own merits. Application allowed to the extent as above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/5390-10crapl