1 /SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2011 Mr. Tiraj Kotian ...Applicant. v. Raymond Dara Balsara & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Parvez Memon i/by Majeed Memon & Associates ,advs. For the Applicant. Mr. S.A.Shaikh, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay while granting ad-interim anticipatory bail and also the impugned order dated 7th January, 2011 granting anticipatory bail to the accused/respondent no.2. 2 The complainant/applicant holds 40% shares in Sealand Containers Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. while accused/respondent no.2 has 30% shares. It is alleged that certain cheques were issued by the accused in the names of certain companies but those cheques were never received by the concerned companies but were got discounted through one Oatmal Purohit of Kalbadevi and the amount was pocketed by the 2 accused. The learned Sessions Judge observed that practice of issuing cheques in the name of some companies and then getting it discounted was common in Sealand Container Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. land as well as in Marinetrans (I) Private Ltd. of which the complainant is director. It is well settled position of law that considerations for grant of bail and considerations for cancellation are quite different. If the Sessions Court had granted bail after considering certain facts, order of bail can not be cancelled by the High Court by re-appreciating the evidence and merely because different view is also possible. Looking to all the facts, which are noted in the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere in the said order. However, it is made clear that observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order shall not be taken into consideration at the time of trial of the case. Application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)