1 APPLN 5635.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5635 OF 2010 Ismail Ibrahim Sayyed & Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda i/b. Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Applicants. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. Mr. K.S. Patil for Respondent 2. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 14th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. In Sessions Case No.147 of 2008 below Exhibit 19, an application was moved seeking to cancel bail extended to Accused No.2 – Mohd. Amiruddin Hati Gaisuddin Talukdar and Accused No.6 – Ismail Ibhrahim Sayyed on the allegations that these accused persons threatened the Informant Firoz Ibrahim Khan to compromise in the said Sessions case and not to depose against the Accused No.2 and Accused No.6. 3. The learned Counsel for the Accused – Applicants, while dealing with the order cancelling the bail recorded below Exhibit 19 took me to the history of litigation, and says, the affidavit in the jail purportedly executed by Firoz Ibrahim Khan 2 APPLN 5635.10.sxw could not be said to be under pressure or coercion as it was witnessed by jail authorities. He submits that the keen interest of Firoz is to ensure that accused – Applicant Ismail Ibrahim Sayyed is languished in jail at least one day and there by his purpose would be achieved. 4. At this stage of the matter, though the learned Counsel for the Accused – Applicant read orders of grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant Ismail in Criminal Application No.4145 of 2007 dated 27th December 2007 and the orders of Apex Court in Appeal Nos.90 of 2009 and 91 of 2009, they are not relevant to the issues involved. The subsequent events are after bail carries importance. 5. One should not be oblivious in first referred bail application before this Court being Criminal Application No. 4145 of 2007 on 27th December 2007 while allowing the Application, the accused – Applicant was mandated “he was not to commit any offence while on bail”. 6. Similarly, when regular bail was granted to him on 18.3.2009, he was informed “he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he shall not leave jurisdiction of Mumbai, Mumbai Sub-urban and Thane District without prior permission of the Court”. Identical conditions were imposed while releasing the Accused No.2 – Mohd. Amuruddin Haji Gaisuddin. 3 APPLN 5635.10.sxw 7. The events seeking to get the bail cancelled, have commenced on 12.8.2009 about 8.00 p.m. Accused No.2 – Mohd. Amiruddin Haji Gaisuddin Talukdar and some un-known persons visited the building in which the Informant resides and Accused No.2 abused and assaulted the Informant. He insisted, Informant should desist from deposing in Court. Thereafter, on 13.8.2009 in the night at about 3.30 a.m. some unknown persons came to his house and assaulted and abused him. Upon enquiry, they disclosed that they were sent by said Mohd. Amiruddin Talukdar. They have asked the Informant why he had lodged the report against said Accused Applicant - No.2 Mohd. Amiruddin Talukdar in Police Station and also cautioned him not to depose against said Accused No.2 otherwise, the Informant will not remain alive. The events of threat/coercion exerted gave rise to lodging of FIR 201 of 2009. 8. The fact remains, in order to ensure that the Informant and the witnesses refrain from attending the Sessions Court, he has been pressurized from all corners at the instance of these two Applicants. At this stage, this Court will not comment on procuring the affidavit by causing pressure as it is also subject of prosecution (FIR No.1/2010) for an offence punishable under Sections 387, 167, 341, 506(2), 323 r/w. 34 and 120-B of IPC. No error appears in allowing Application Exhibit 19 to direct Accused/Applicants to surrender. 9. On 3rd March 2011, this Court directed the parties to 4 APPLN 5635.10.sxw attend the Trial Court punctually and participate in the Sessions Case No.147 of 2008 and inform. Earlier bail granted by the Trial Court to the Accused/Applicants to continue till then. Such stay order still flows. 10. In the above facts and situation, I do not see any error in allowing Exhibit 19 in Sessions Case No.147 of 2008 by the learned Judge. Application rejected. However, orders are stayed for a period of 60 (sixty) days and in the meantime, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed with on going Sessions Case No.147 of 2008 without giving opportunity to either of the side to drag the matter. Needless to add, the Accused – Applicants shall not coerce any of the prosecution witness from attending the said Sessions Case or influence them otherwise. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)