Ladda 1 appp-194-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 194 of 2011 [FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL] IN CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 217 of 2011 [FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL] Ravindra Kamlakar Pavnekar .. .. Applicant. Versus Vincent Anthony and anr. .. .. Respondents. Mr S.L. Mhatre, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr P. S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State. Mr S.R. Chitnis, Senior Advocate with Mrs Vrishali R. Raje Advocate for RespondentNo.1. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED:- 26th July, 2011. [In Chamber at 2:40 p.m.] P.C. 1. On the last date notice was issued against Respondent No.1 – original accused, who was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. In the present petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail what is Ladda 2 appp-194-11.doc challenged is the order passed by this Court dated 23rd March, 2011 granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No.1. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr S.R.Chitnis appeared for Respondent No.1 and raised preliminary objection on maintainability of the present application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, on the ground that entire application is based on the merits of the case and nothing is mentioned in the application regarding any violation of the condition of bail imposed by this Court. It is further submitted that the proper course for the present applicant – original complainant is to challenge the order of grant of anticipatory bail before the Higher Court. 3. On the above submissions made on behalf of Respondent No.1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted that there is nothing to construe that Respondent No.1 had violated any conditions of the bail granted to him. On this aspect, learned Advocate for the applicant pointed out that during the pendency of the anticipatory bail application, Respondent No.1-accused was not available at his residence and was absconding. It is further submitted that it is the ground, along with the other grounds touching only the merits of the matter, are sufficient to cancel the bail. 4. After the above submissions, learned Advocate for the applicant – original complainant prays for withdrawal of the present application. Ladda 3 appp-194-11.doc Said request is granted. The application is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. 5. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1 pressed for the cost to be awarded to Respondent No.1. However, considering the over all circumstances of the present matter such request is not granted. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)