1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1502 of 2009 Shri Sham Haibat Raut ... Applicant versus Pravin Prabhakar Raut & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.V.T. Tulpule, Sr. Advocate with Mr.P.B. Naiknaware for the applicant. None for the respondents. Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 472 of 2009 Shri Sham Haibat Raut ... Applicant versus Sanjay Suresh Raut & ors ... Respondents ... Mr.V.T. Tulpule, Sr. Advocate with Mr.P.B. Naiknaware for the applicant. Mr.Ganesh Gole for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State. WITH 2 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 778 of 2009 State of Maharashtra ... Applicant versus Mahesh Narayan Raut & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State. Mr.Ganesh Gole for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 14th January 2010 P.C. 1. In all these applications, the applicants who are the First Informants and the State have applied for cancellation of bail granted to the accused in respect of a crime bearing C.R.No.I-56/08 registered against respondents for an offence punishable u/s.302, 137, 148, 149, 323 and 506 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 19th October 2008, respondents gathered in front of the house of Tanaji (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and challenged him to come out of the house and that he would be killed. The respondents along with few other persons gathered again, entered the house of Tanaji, dragged him out and assaulted him with wooden logs. Tanaji survived the assault 3 and was taken to the neighbour's house but again he was dragged out and assaulted second time. He was taken to a local hospital and then to the J.J hospital where he died. Respondents were arrested. Charge- sheet is filed. The Sessions Court has granted bail. Aggrieved by the order of bail, the relatives of the deceased has filed the present application for cancellation of bail and the State also filed an application for cancellation of bail. 3. In Manjit Prakash & ors. Vs. Shobha Devi & Anr 2008(3) (Crimes) 107 (SC), the Supreme Court has reiterated the difference of approach to be adopted by the Court in considering initial applicatioin for bail and an application for cancellation of bail. After referring to its earlier decisions in Aslam Babalal Desai Versus State of Maharashtra AIR 1993 SC, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan 2004(7) SCC 528 and Puran Vs. Rambilas & Anr, 2001 Vol.6 SCC 338, the Supreme Court has held that when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with the evidence or witnesses or threaten witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail can be cancelled but cancellation of a bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be likely resorted to. In Puran’s case, the Supreme Court further held that concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order (granting bail) is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. In the present case, counsel for the applicants and the learned APP were unable to point out any perversity in the initial order granting bail. No 4 circumstances were also pointed out that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts, order for cancellation of bail was required. In the circumstances, in my view, applications cannot be granted. 4. Applications are accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)