1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 183 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant versus Dattatraya @ Baba Manohar Mayekar & Anr... Respondents ... Mrs.A.A.Mane APP for the applicant State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 22nd January 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this application, the State prays for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent nos.1 and 2 (accused nos.3 and 4) by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri by an order dated 12th November 2009. 3. In Dolatram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between rejection of a bail in a non bailable case at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted. 2 In paragraph no.4 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed :- 4. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a nonbailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 3 The decision of Dolatram’s case was quoted and followed by the Supreme Court in Sudhendu Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra, 2000 SCC (Crime) 1508. Thereafter, in Puran Vs. Rambilas, 2001 Vol.6 SCC 338, the Supreme Court again re-iterated it and stated that concept of setting aside an unjustified illegal or perverse was totally different from the concept of cancelling bail on the ground that accused had misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring cancellation. The position in law is thus settled that a bail which is granted by the Sessions Court can be cancelled on three grounds i) the accused who has been granted bail has misused the bail and misconducted himself, or (ii) because of discovery of new facts requiring cancellation, or (iii) that the order of Sessions Court granting bail is wholly unjustified and illegal or perverse. 4. In the present case, learned APP for the applicant was unable to point out any perversity in the order of the Sessions Judge. She submitted that the offence was grave and was punishable with death or imprisonment for life and that there was a possibility of the respondents tampering with the prosecution evidence. Both these submissions were made before but rejected by the Sessions Court. While deciding the 4 bail application, the Sessions Judge is not expected to give elaborate reasons as that may prejudice the ultimate trial. Reasons given in brief are sufficient. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has given adequate reasons for granting bail and I do not find any perversity in the view taken by the Sessions Judge. No arguments were advanced that accused has misused the bail and has misconducted after the order of the bail. In the circumstances, none of the grounds for cancellation of the bail exists. Application is accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)