1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 3221 of 2009 The State of Maharashtra and anr v. Keshav Kamble -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Ms Bharti Dangre, Addl. PP for applicants Mr S.L. Kotwal, Adv for responden t Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 26th February 2010 1. By this application filed under Section 439 (2) Cr. P.C. Applicant-State of Maharashtra prays for cancellation of bail granted by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 2420 of 2008 vide order dated 31st December 2008. By the said order, present respondent was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs with surety/sureties in the like amount. Learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed following conditions on the respondent/accused while ordering his release on bail: 1. The applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh (Rs. One Lakh) with Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. 2. The learned Magistrate shall invest this amount in any local Nationalized Bank to ensure that the amount fetches maximum interest. The amount so deposited 2 shall be treated as property in the case and shall be dealt with by the learned Magistrate at the end of the trial. 3. The applicant shall attend the officer of Additional Superintendent of Police, CID as and when called for further investigation. 4. The applicant shall furnish his telephone number, mobile numbers and surrender his passport if any. 5. The applicant shall also furnish the list of all the property he have and the Investigation Officer may cause appropriate publication to ensure that the property of the applicant is not transferred. 6. The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that he shall not create any third party interest in his property till the trial is over. 7. He shall not tamper the prosecution evidence.” 2. The aforesaid order of bail has been passed long back on 31st December 2009. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that in view of the serious nature of accusation, bail is needed to be cancelled and respondent shall be directed to remain in custody pending hearing and disposal of trial. According to her, bail granted by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge was absolutely illegal, arbitrary and in view of accusation that there was misappropriation of huge amount and the material collected during the course of investigation, bail granted is required to be cancelled. Ms Bharti Dangre, learned 3 APP relies on Puran v. Rambilas and anr reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 2566 in order to submit that power to cancel bail granted by the Court of Sessions may be exercised even under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court if the order granting bail was illegal, unjustified and perverse. 3. Learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand, contended that offences are alleged to have occurred long back in the year 2007. He submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order imposing stringent conditions while ordering release of respondent on bail. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the said order was contrary to law, unjust and perverse. Learned counsel for respondent relied on Krishna Reddy v. State and anr reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 1253. Madras High Court on the basis of various judgments of the Supreme Court has held that two paramount considerations for cancellation of bail are : (1) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; and (2) tampering with prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for respondent submits that there is no allegation on the part of State that respondent is likely to abscond and there is no material to indicate that respondent has tried to tamper with prosecution evidence. 4. After hearing both sides, in my considered opinion, there is no merit in the application at hand. In Bhagirathsingh Judeja v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC 372, the Apex 4 Court has held thus : “Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. If there is no prima facie case there is no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence.” This principle has been followed by the Apex Court in Savitri Agarwal & ors v. State of Maharashtra and anr (AIR 2009 SC 3173). 5. There is no overwhelming or cogent circumstance pointed out by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor warranting 5 cancellation of bail granted in favour of respondent/accused. There is no material placed on record to substantiate that respondent is misusing the privilege which may lead to the drastic relief of cancellation of bail. It may be kept in mind that personal liberty arising from conditional bail in favour of the respondent cannot be taken away lightly particularly when he has not violated any of the conditions imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge. There is no arbitrariness, infirmity and/or perversity, as alleged, in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge which may lead to its cancellation. Moreover, I do not find any supervening circumstances to cancel bail granted in favour of the respondent. 6. In the result, no case is made out to cancel bail granted to respondent by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 31st December 2008. Hence, application is rejected. Judge. hsj