1 cri.appln 3357-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3357 OF 2010 WITH MISC.APPLICATION NO. 630 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Suryakant Shivshankar Mishra ...Respondent Ms.P.H. Kantharia, APP for the Applicant-State. Shri Rakesh K. Agarwal for the Respondent. Ms.Rajrani Somnath Tikku  in person  Applicant/ Intervenor in Misc.Application No.630/2010) present in Court. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : DECEMBER 7, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned APP for the State, the learned Counsel for the respondent and the complainant in person. 2 The State has filed this application for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Ad-hoc 2 cri.appln 3357-2010 Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree to the accused- respondent on 11th February, 2010 in Crime No.13/2010 under Sections 376, 420, 323, 504, 506, 507 IPC, on a report lodged by complainant Ms.Rajrani Somanath Tikku. The said complainant has also filed Misc.Application No.630 of 2010 seeking leave to intervene in the present application. Leave granted. 3 Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant and her mother have a big house at Prabhadevi. As there is no other member in the family and there was also no source of income, they used to keep paying guest in the house. The accused, who was working as Assistant Manager in Credit Control Department of Fast Train Courier Company, was inducted in the house as a paying guest. According to the complainant, he used to bring food and fruits in order to impress the complainant and her mother. He also used to come under influence of liquor. About one week after he came to live there as a paying guest, he forcibly established sexual 3 cri.appln 3357-2010 relationship with the complainant. On one occasion, he cheated her and took her to a movie under the pretext that they were going for shopping. Later on, the accused had suspicion that the complainant had also some relationship with another paying guest and on that ground, he had beaten her. On 6th December, 2009, he threatened and beat her and also said that he had relationship with another girl and was going to marry her. At that time, the complainant was serving food to him. On 21st December, 2009, the accused left the house. A complaint was lodged on 17th January, 2010, on the basis of which the offence was registered. 4 From the complaint lodged by her with the police, it appears that the accused had illicit relations with her for a period of about one month, but she lodged the report about 28 days after he had left the house. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the accused. 4 cri.appln 3357-2010 Thereafter, the complainant filed Misc.Application No.36/2010 for cancellation of bail on the ground that she had received threatening calls. That application was rejected by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 12th March, 2010. Hence, this application before the High Court. 5 On perusal of the order granting bail and the circumstances noted above, it is impossible to find any fault in the order of grant of bail. From the reasons for cancellation of bail, it appears that there was an allegation that she had received threatening calls on 11th February, 2010, 15th February, 2010 and 2nd March, 2010 on behalf of the accused from different mobiles. Two calls were on her mobile and one call was on the land line. These allegations were investigated by the police. Admittedly, the police could not establish that the accused had any connection with the three telephones from which the calls were made to the complainant. Except the version of the complainant that there 5 cri.appln 3357-2010 were threatening calls, there is no other material. It is material to note that the accused was arrested on 17th January, 2010. He was granted bail on 11th February, 2010 but he could not furnish the bail upto 2nd March, 2010. He furnished the bail and was actually released on 3rd March, 2010. All the alleged three calls were received by her after the bail order was passed by the court and till before he was released. It may be an attempt to see that he was not released on bail. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I find no valid reason for cancellation of bail granted to the accused. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, the application stands rejected. Intervention application stands disposed of, accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)