[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2819 OF 2008 Santosh Pratap Kanade ..Applicant Vs. Manoj @ Munna Mansingh Sathe and Ors. ..Respondents ... M/s.J.Shekhar and Co. for applicant Mr.S.V.Kotwal Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7 Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-orignal complainant, the learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 7-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking cancellation of bail granted to Respondent Nos.1 to 7 by this Court by order dated 30.7.2008. The Respondents were granted bail by reasoned order dated 30.7.2008. 3. The case of the applicant is that the statements of Anantrao Kanade and Shantinath Patil [-2-] wherein they have named the Respondents and their specific role and weapon, has not been brought to the notice of the Court. However, on perusal of the order dated 30.7.2008, it is seen that the learned APP has pointed out that the injured witness Santosh and other witnesses have stated that the respondents-accused were present on the spot and they were armed with weapons. However, no role of actual assault was attributed to any of the said accused. In the FIR, names of only four persons are mentioned and it is stated that the said four persons assaulted the complainant and deceased. There is no reference to any other person or unknown person in the FIR. The incident had taken place on 21.5.2008. Dada died on 26.5.2008. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the statements of Anantrao Kanade and Shantinath Patil who are eye witnesses. It is stated that they have named all the respondents and they have stated the specific role and the weapon with the accused persons. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that both these witnesses in their first statements have not [-3-] named any of the respondents. It is only in their further statements which were recorded on 22.7.2008 and 25.5.2008 respectively that they have named the respondents-accused. Even in further statements of both witnesses, no role of actual assault has been attributed to any of the respondents. 5. It is well settled that considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are entirely different. In this view of the matter, I do not think that this is a fit case to cancel the bail. Looking to the above facts, no case is made out for cancellation of bail, hence, application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]