SUDEEP RAMESH MAHORE AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 310 OF 2023 SUDEEP RAMESH MAHORE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate h/f Mr. A. P. Raka, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for the respondent/State Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. RESERVED ON : 19/10/2023 PRONOUNCED ON : 25/10/2023 ORDER :- 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 17th February, 2023 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal M.A. No. 16 of 2023 whereby the order dated 21st November, 2022 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 2168 of 2022, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 195/2022 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad was cancelled. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Respondent lodged first information report on 12th August, 2022 with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad against the accused persons including present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC. In connection with criwp310.23.23 1 of 6 said crime petitioners filed application for anticipatory bail bearing No. 2168 of 2022. The said application was allowed by order dated 21 st November, 2022 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The respondent/ original informant being aggrieved by the said grant of pre arrest bail filed an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail so granted. Cri. M.A. No. 16 of 2023 was filed before the Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Judge by passing impugned order dated 17th February, 2023 allowed the said application and cancelled the bail granted by order dated 21st November, 2022. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bail granted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not solely on the ground of parity however, it is essentially allowed on merit. It is his further contention that it was not open for the informant to raise objection to the grant of bail before the same Court and if the informant was aggrieved by the said order, the same ought to have been challenged before the higher Court. By drawing attention of the Court to the observations made in the order of grant of bail dated 17th February, 2022 it is submitted that this can never be said to be a case of misrepresentation or fraud upon the Court. He also argued that even on the merit the application for grant of bail would have been rightly criwp310.23.23 2 of 6 allowed by the Addl. Sessions Judge. It is submitted that the law is settled on the point that the bail was granted cannot be ordinarily cancelled. To support his submission he placed reliance on following judgment: