Judgment · High Court · 2026

ACB-63-2025-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADAPPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 63 OF 2025IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2025Radha Wd/o Bhikchand GhitreAge : 49 years, Occu : Housewife,R/o : Plot No.37, Raje Sambhaji Colony,Jadhavwadi, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad.… ApplicantVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Superintendent of Police,Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.2.Police Inspector,Police Station Shillegaon,Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.3.Bhanudas S/o Fakirrao GhitreAge : 50 Years, Occu : Teacher,R/o: Flat No.3, First Avenue,Jalannagar, Railway Station,Aurangabad.… Respondents[R.No.3 is original accused No.1]…..Mr. D. R. Shelke, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State.Dr. Anagha N. Pedgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.Reserved on: 12.01.2026Pronounced on: 13.01.2026 ACB-63-2025-2- ORDER : 1.Instant application by original informant is for cancellation ofbail granted to present respondent no.3 by order dated 7.02.2025 inBail Application No. 26 of 2025 in consequence to registration ofcrime no. 0193 of 2023 registered at Shillegaon Police Station,District Aurangabad, for offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324,323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of IPC. 2.Taking this Court through the FIR and papers, learned counselfor applicant/informant would submit that applicant is seekingcancellation of bail granted to main accused Bhanudas, against whomthere are allegations of overt act by hitting an uprooted iron pole i.e.in assaulting deceased who allegedly suffered instant death. Learnedcounsel took this Court through the postmortem report and moreparticularly column no. 19 and would highlight the impact of theassault. He would point out that offence was serious. That, main rolewas attributed to accused respondent no.3. That, this Court hadgranted bail on the ground of other accused to be on bail and onaccount of incarceration for more than one and half years. He wouldpoint out that, recently law has been settled that in cases of seriousnature, this Court can cancel bail even if it was granted and that,ground of long incarceration is no good ground to extend the benefit ACB-63-2025-3- of bail. He pointed out that, considerations for grant of bail were nottaken into account by this Court. That, there was no medical reasonsupported by any material to extend the benefit. Consequently it is hissubmission that, going by the gravity of the offence, respondent beingmain accused and being solely responsible for causing death, he wasnot entitled for bail. In support of above submissions, Learned counselseeks reliance on the judgment of Ajwar v. Wasim and another (2024)10 SCC 768, State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. 2025 SCC OnLineSC 1702 and Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another(2018) 12 SCC 129.3.Learned APP also joined in urging this Court to cancel the bailand he too would point out that, serious offence is committed. That,prior to the occurrence, application was forwarded to police forextending police protection and tt is part of papers. Even according tohim, main role is attributed to accused/present respondent no.3 forassaulting deceased with article like iron pipe which he allegedly tookover from another accused who had uprooted it. He pointed out thatthere is video-graph as well as its panchanama on record and thus hesubmits that, with serious allegations, respondent no.3 was notentitled for benefit of bail. He further submitted that respondent isalso not attending trial court. ACB-63-2025-4- 4.Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 would take thisCourt through the order passed by this Court while granting bail andwould submit that, after considering the submissions and papers, thisCourt had granted bail on merits. According to her, it is fairly settledposition that bail once granted cannot be withdrawn. She urges totake into account the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the caseof Dolat Ram and ors. v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 andlastly would submit that there are no circumstances whatsoever forwithdrawing the benefit of bail granted earlier. She further submittedthat, now charges are already framed and case is awaiting trial. 5.Present application is for cancellation of bail granted by thisCourt by order dated 07.02.2025 in Bail Application No. 26 of 2025.It seems that even at that time prosecution had opposed grant of bailon the grounds that offence is under Section 302 IPC and there isindependent eye witness account regarding assault by presentrespondent. This court has also taken into account the submission ofthe then learned APP that there was video-graph of the occurrence.This Court had heard both sides and had made discussion in para 4 ofthe order. This court had noted that when the process ofmeasurement was in progress on 26.06.2023, alleged incident hadtaken place. This Court had also noted that Dnyaneshwar had ACB-63-2025-5- uprooted the pole/angle and after he handed it over to presentrespondent no.3, the same was put to use by inflicting blow on thehead of deceased as a result of which, he died. This Court in previousorder had visited the postmortem report and had noted aboutprobable cause of death to be complications following head injury.Primarily this Court had noted that applicant was behind bars since22.07.2023 i.e. since almost one and half years, and it was also notedthat it was not pointed out to this Court that there were immediateprospects about matter going for trial. At that time, submissions weremade across the bar that by that day, even charges were not framed.Such factors cumulatively prevailed over this Court for granting bailby imposing conditions. 6.Now, above order granting bail is sought to be cancelled.However, while advancing the arguments, it is noticed that againgrounds/points of merits of the case are tried to be re-agitated by theoriginal complainant. There are no accusations of misuse of libertynor any supervening circumstances are brought to the notice of thisCourt so as to recall the order of grant of bail. 7.Law is fairly settled that bail once granted cannot be withdrawnunless in exceptional cases. Law to this extent has been dealt in thecase of Dolat Ram (supra). Very recently also, the Hon’ble Apex Court ACB-63-2025-6- in the case of Abhimanue v. State of Kerla 2025 INSC 1136 haselaborately discussed the judicial precedent on cancellation of bailincluding the three Judge Bench judgment in the case of P. v. State ofMadhya Pradesh (2022) 15 SCC 211 wherein there is discussion onthe aspect of revocation of bail once granted. In the said case, theKerala High Court had cancelled the bail of five out of the ten accusedtherein, and in appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the saidorder of Kerala High Court by leaning in favour of liberty rather thanits curtailment. Similar views are echoed in another judgment of theHon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Irshad @ Monu v. State ofMaharashtra reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185. In the case of X v.State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0959/2025, in para 23, theHon’ble Apex Court has made following observations;“23. Recently, this Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad v. TheState of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. MANU/SC/0301/2025 :2025:INSC:307 : (2025) 4 SCC 172 while placing relianceupon the case of Ajwar v. Waseem MANU/SC/0462/2024 :2024:INSC:438 : (2024) 10 SCC 768 cancelled the bailgranted to the Accused in a dowry death case observing asfollows:18.... A superficial application of bail parameters notonly undermines the gravity of the offence itself butalso risks weakening public faith in the judiciary'sresolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It isthis very perception of justice, both within and outside ACB-63-2025-7- the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risknormalizing a crime that continues to claim numerousinnocent lives. These observations regarding grant ofbail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with bythis Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras:26 . While considering as to whether bail ought to begranted in a matter involving a serious criminaloffence, the Court must consider relevant factors likethe nature of the accusations made against theAccused, the manner in which the crime is alleged tohave been committed, the gravity of the offence, therole attributed to the Accused, the criminal antecedentsof the Accused, the probability of tampering of thewitnesses and repeating the offence, if the Accused arereleased on bail, the likelihood of the Accused beingunavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibilityof obstructing the proceedings and evading the courtsof justice and the overall desirability of releasing theAccused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.[Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [ MANU/SC/0631/2004 :2004:INSC:451 : (2004) 7 SCC 525]; Kalyan ChandraSarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [ MANU/SC/0214/2004 :(2004) 7 SCC 528]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [MANU/SC/0683/2009 : 2009:INSC:613 : (2009) 14SCC 286]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee[ MANU/SC/0916/2010 : 2010:INSC:752 : (2010) 14SCC 496]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [MANU/SC/1208/2014 : 2014:INSC:841 : (2014) 16SCC 508]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[ MANU/SC/1454/2017 : 2017:INSC:1111 : (2018) 12SCC 129]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [MANU/SC/1677/2019 : 2019:INSC:1325 : (2020) 2SCC 118].27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted,ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is ACB-63-2025-8- always open to interference by the superior court. Ifthere are serious allegations against the Accused, evenif he has not misused the bail granted to him, such anorder can be cancelled by the same Court that hasgranted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superiorcourt if it transpires that the courts below have ignoredthe relevant material available on 12-01-2026 (Page 5of 7)record or not looked into the gravity of the offenceor the impact on the society resulting in such an order.In P v. State of M.P. [MANU/SC/0587/2022 :2022:INSC:514 : (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by athree-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us(Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations thatmust weigh with the Court for interfering in an ordergranting bail to an Accused Under Section 439(1) Codeof Criminal Procedure in the following words:(SCC p. 224, para 24)24 . As can be discerned from the above decisions, forcancelling bail once granted, the court must considerwhether any supervening circumstances have arisen orthe conduct of the Accused post grant of baildemonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fairtrial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoyingthe concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. Stateof Haryana, MANU/SC/0547/1995 : 1994:INSC:548 :(1995) 1 SCC 349]. To put it differently, in ordinarycircumstances, this Court would be loathe to interferewith an order passed by the court below granting bailbut if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse orpremised on material that is irrelevant, then such anorder is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by theappellate court.Considerations for setting aside bail orders 28. The considerations that weigh with the appellatecourt for setting aside the bail order on an application ACB-63-2025-9- being moved by the aggrieved party include anysupervening circumstances that may have occurredafter granting relief to the Accused, the conduct of theAccused while on bail, any attempt on the part of theAccused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial,any instance of threats being extended to the witnesseswhile on bail, any attempt on the part of the Accusedto tamper with the evidence in any manner. We mayadd that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive.However, the court must be cautious that at the stageof granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to beexamined and detailed reasons relating to the merits ofthe case that may cause prejudice to the Accused,ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bailorder should reveal the factors that have beenconsidered by the Court for granting relief to theAccused.”8.In yet another case of Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan2024 INSC 994, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that bail canonly be cancelled upon supervening circumstances or abuse of liberty,not merely because of the gravity of the offence.9.Bearing above judicial precedent on cancellation of bail inmind, in the considered opinion of this court, no exceptional groundhas been put forth except stating that respondent is main accused andoffence is serious. Several above referred citations are relied and thereis no dispute that the Hon’ble Apex Court had cancelled the bail inthose cases. On court query as to whether there is non compliance or ACB-63-2025-10- breach of any condition imposed by this Court while granting bail,learned APP answered in negative. Moreover, it is brought to thenotice of this Court by learned counsel for respondent that charge isalready framed and matter is committed, but no trial calender isreported to be drawn yet. Resultantly, no ground being made out forcancellation of bail, following order is passed :ORDERApplication stands rejected. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre