High Court

Legal Reasoning

1 908-CrWP-398-25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2025SATISH DANIYAL BHALERAOVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sandip R. AndhaleAPP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. B. JadhavAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rahul A. Tambe…CORAM: KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE: 25-06-2025PER COURT:-1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedA.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 forsome time. The petition is taken up for final disposal by consent ofthe parties.2.This petition challenges an order passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, belowExhibit-1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.9 and 11 of2025, dated 25.02.2025, cancelling the anticipatory bail granted tothe present petitioner by order dated 03.12.2024 in CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.718 of 2024 passed by the sameCourt. Thereafter, both the prosecution as well as the informant 2 908-CrWP-398-25.odtfiled criminal miscellaneous applications seeking cancellation ofbail of the petitioner. The informant has filed Criminal ApplicationNo.9 of 2025, whereas the State has filed Criminal ApplicationNo.11 of 2025.3.The facts, as alleged in the First Information Report (“F.I.R.”)are that the land belonging to one trust is sold to another trustwithout following procedure under Section 36 of the MaharashtraPublic Trusts Act. It is also alleged that while transferring the land,no formalities were completed. The transfer of land is totallyillegal.4.Present petitioner, smelling that the offence is likely to beregistered, applied for bail in the event of his arrest and the samewas granted by order dated 03.12.2024. First Information Reportcame to be lodged thereafter on 16.01.2025. In the investigation,it was found that there is some material against the presentpetitioner, and therefore, the application for cancellation of bailcame to be filed by the State and also another application by theinformant.5.The learned Sessions Judge considered the case on merits. Itis observed that the present petitioner had obtained bail order bysuppressing material facts. In the application, he has posed thathe is working as a clerk in the school run by the trust, whereas it isrevealed in the investigation that he has played active role in 3 908-CrWP-398-25.odttransferring the land in favour of another accused, namely,Sandipan Kisan Tupare. Lateron, he also published a notice posinghimself to be the Chairman/President of the trust. Initially he hadfiled objection to transfer by filing application to Talathi.Thereafter, the Talathi effected the entries in the regular record.6.Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued thatthe learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly cancelled thebail. Once the bail is granted, the same could not have beencancelled by considering the merits of the matter. Considerationsfor cancellation of bail are totally different like, violation ofcondition of bail, bringing pressure on the prosecution witnesses,trying to interfere with the investigation, etc. In his submission, inthe present case, none of these things are shown. The learnedtrial Court has wrongly considered the case on merits andcancelled the bail. He, thus, prays for allowing the petition.7.Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the petition. He submitsthat the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail even prior toregistration of F.I.R. which shows his criminal mind. Whenanticipatory bail was granted even the prosecution was not armedwith any material against him. It is only after lodging of the F.I.R.and during the course of investigation, the role of the petitionerwas unearthed. It is, for this reason, the prosecution has filedapplication for cancellation of bail. Unless the custody is directed, 4 908-CrWP-398-25.odtno proper investigation would be possible. Till now, theinvestigation is in progress. So far as the present petitioner isconcerned, though the chargesheet is filed against other accusedpersons, against this petitioner a report is shown under Section299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as he is absconding. Hesubmits that unless custody is taken, police would not be in aposition to complete the investigation. He, thus, prays for rejectionof petition.8.Mr. Tambe, learned counsel appearing for the informantsubmits that initially the petitioner had suppressed the fact abouthis role in the alleged transfer of land. Before the Court he hadonly posed that he is a clerk in one of the institutions of the trust.However, proclamation published in the newspaper shows that heis posing himself to be the President of the trust, viz, Conference ofthe Chruches of Christ in Western India. When he is posing himselfto be the President of the trust, no transfer of the land could havebeen possible. He, thus, submits that though no document isexecuted by him. It was not possible without his consent andactive participation. During the course of arguments, it is pointedout that Anticipatory Bail Application of another accused, namely,Deepak Namdev Gaikwad came to be rejected by the trial Court aswell as by this Court. The said order was also carried to theHonourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court didnot interfere with the order passed by this Court in case of Deepak 5 908-CrWP-398-25.odtNamdev Gaikwad. He further informs that first bail applicationwas filed by giving incorrect information and that is also a groundto cancel the order of bail. It is clear that he has facilitated theoffence and it is for this reason, the Court has rightly passed theorder and no interference is required.9.After hearing the parties, this Court finds that theapplications were filed by the State and the informant forcancellation of bail on merits. It was open for the parties tochallenge the order granting bail on merits by approaching thisCourt. For cancellation of bail, the considerations are different. Inthe present case, it is seen that the learned Additional SessionsJudge has considered the merits of the matter and after hearingcancelled bail. A grave and serious case is required for cancellationof bail as cancellation of bail amounts to taking away liberty ofperson, once having been granted. However, the F.I.R. has beenlodged on 16.01.2025 and the informant as well as the prosecutionhave filed applications for cancellation of bail No.9 and 11 of 2025on 05.02.2025 and 12.02.2025, respectively. No overwhelmingreasons are shown for cancellation of bail. 10.The Court finds that the learned Sessions Judge has lost sightthat no considerations for cancellation of bail are seen in thepresent matter and passed the order on merits. Considering allthe above facts, this Court is inclined to allow the petition. 6 908-CrWP-398-25.odtHence, the order:-ORDER(i)The Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.(ii)The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, below Exhibit-1 in CriminalMiscellaneous Application No.9 and 11 of 2025, dated25.02.2025, stands quashed and set aside. However, it ismade clear that the petitioner shall attend the concernedpolice station as and when called by the InvestigatingOfficer.(iii)Pending criminal application, if any, stands disposed of. [KISHORE C. SANT] JUDGErrd