18crn478-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.478 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Vs. Shri Nishan Sing son of Gurubachan Sing Pannu. ..Respondent. .... Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the Applicant-State. Ms.Tanmai Gagwani, Advocate i/b. Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the Respondent. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this application preferred by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail 18crn478-09 2 granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dated 13.11.2008. 2. It is argued on behalf of the State by learned A.P.P. that the Sessions Court overlooked the aspect of abscondance of the present respondent, a co-accused, in the offence of abduction and murder. It appears that the present application for cancellation of bail is preferred on 13.1.2009 i.e. about 2 months of allowing the anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Thereafter in the month of March, 2009 notices were directed to be issued against the respondent. However, since then till today the matter could not reach for the final hearing. 3. Today, during the arguments learned Advocate Ms.Gagwani for the respondent submitted that at the time of filing of the anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, chargesheet was already filed and it was known to the Court and even to the prosecuting agency that the said applicant was not available for the arrest and still considering 18crn478-09 3 such circumstances an order came to be passed granting anticipatory bail and releasing the respondent on bail in the event of arrest in the matter. 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that there should be such overwhelming circumstances to overturn the earlier granted order and that also after lapse of about one and half years. It appears that there is much substance in the said argument mainly on the count that now in the event of cancellation and custodial interrogation if granted, hardly there could be any material available as the main offence is allegedly committed in January, 2008. 5. Though it is pointed out by learned AP.P for the applicant-State that there is statement of one witness by name Sarvan Sing who was also abducted in the said incident along with the deceased and as such prima facie effect of the said statement has not been appreciated by the Sessions Court. 18crn478-09 4 6. As against the above arguments, the learned Advocate Ms.Gagwani for the respondent brought attention of this Court to the statement of one by name Vinayak Sakdeo which is dated 28.1.2008 i.e. in immediate proximity of the alleged commission of the offence in the present matter. Statement of said witness who is a rikshaw dirver happened to be at the spot where the dead body was found narrated something contrary to the case of the police. He mentions regarding one lorry giving dash to somebody on the road and fleeing from the spot and the said witness ascertaining as to what had happened to said pedestrian and finding that pedestrian had died. Said witness Vinayak Sakdeo had lodged his complaint to Panvel police. 7. Considering such circumstances as narrated above, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to cancel the earlier granted bail at this belated stage as the chargesheet has already been filed and if at all the supplementary chargesheet is to be filed by the police, it can be done and the 18crn478-09 5 matter can be put to trial. In the result, present application is disposed of with following order :- :: O R D E R:: [i] Criminal Application No.478 of 2009 for cancellation of anticipatory bail stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)