1 CA-5614.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5614 OF 2009 Suresh Mani .... Applicant Vs. Deepak Manohar Shroff & Anr. .... Respondents Shri A.P. Mundargi i/b M/s. Khaitan & Jaykar for the Applicant. S/Shri Harshad Ponda, Senior Advocate with Subhash Jadhav and Gautam Tiwari i/b ALMT Legal for Respondent No.1. Shri Y.M. Nakhawa, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 P.C: 1. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai by his order running into almost 16 pages. The applicant had been inducted in possession of an office premises bearing No.707 at Raheja Centre. The applicant had paid a deposit of Rupees Two Crores for getting possession of the premises. The applicant did not want to continue in possession after the expiry of the term and, therefore, wanted the respondent to refund the 2 CA-5614.09 deposit and take back the possession. The office premises bearing No.707 along with some other properties had been mortgaged by the respondent with Bank of India. The respondent wrote to the Bank of India that the Bank may auction the office premises No.707, recover its dues and pay back Rupees Three Crores to the applicant and the balance to the respondent. According to the applicant, the respondent could have asked the Bank to auction some other property rather than the property which was in the possession of the applicant and, in any case, when the deposit of the applicant had not been refunded, the respondent could not have asked the Bank to proceed with the auction of the property in possession of the applicant. This, according to the applicant, amounts to cheating. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Though the learned trial Judge should not have so elaborately dealt with the arguments advanced in his 16-page order, the order itself is not bad in the sense that from the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant it cannot be said that the detention of the respondent in custody pending the trial is warranted. In view of this, as I 3 CA-5614.09 reject this application for cancellation of bail, it has also to be observed that all the observations made by the learned trial Judge in his order dated 23-9-2009 shall not be considered when the case is tried on its own merit or in any other proceedings between the parties. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)