1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 920 OF 2011 Bharat Bansaraj Rajput and Ors. ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni i/by Mr. V.V. Purwant, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, A.P.P. for State. Mr. Ashwin Thool, Advocate for original complainant. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 P.C. Heard the leaned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for original complainant submits that the applicants under the umbrella of grant of A.B.A. have killed time of 6/7 months before this court. They were aware that such exercise by the other accused in the same case was turned down by this court. Inspite of such knowledge they did not advert to appropriate procedure. The learned counsel says that the accused applicant being influential persons may play with the available evidence. 2 Without adverting to the role played by the accused or the applicants as borrower, even if they hold substantial position in the financial institution, the fact remains that they were showered with pre arrest bail by order dated 15.5.2010. The application seeking cancellation of bail was allowed on 26.4.2011 after a year on the ground of lodging FIR. This court has also refused to entertain ABA of other accused. The grant of ABA dated 15.5.2010 till filing of F.I.R. or in normal course till final report, cancellation as has been done by the learned Judge requires to be stayed for the period of forty five days. The applicants herein are at liberty to move the learned Judge seeking regular bail. The learned Judge is at liberty to decide the said application, if moved, on its own merits diversed from the earlier observations, recorded in the order dated 26.4.2011. Application allowed to the extent as above. Disposed of. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)