High Court · 2025
Facts
- 1 -IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.559 OF 2025Abhishek Eknath Kadam,Age-20 years, Occu-Education,R/o. Mandavjali,Tq. and Dist. Beed -- APPELLANTVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra Through Officer in Charge, Police Station, Dharashiv City, Dist.Dharashiv (Osmanabad)2. Koyna Satish Vitkar, Age-40 years, Occu-Homemaker, R/o Nagsen Nagar, Dhanora Road, Beed, Tq. And Dist.Beed Mob.No.7972710048-- RESPONDENTSMr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.G.O.Wattamwar, APP for the respondent/State. Mr.D.R.Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2 ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) RESERVED ON : 23 SEPTEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 04 OCTOBER 2025J U D G M E N T : 1.The appellant is praying for quashing and setting aside theorder passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Specialkhs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 2 -Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal M.A.No.38/2025 dated 09.07.2025, bywhich order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judgewas pleased to cancel the bail granted to the respondent on 16.04.2025in Cri.Bail Application No.136/2025, due to violation of conditions ofbail, particularly condition Nos. 3 and 4 of the said order.2.The learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 16.04.2025,was pleased to grant bail to the appellant in Crime No.120/2025,registered for the offence punishable u/s 108, 3(5) of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita and Section 3(1)(r) of the Prevention of SC and ST Actand while granting the bail, put certain conditions to the appellant,which reads as under :-[i]Bail Application No.136/2025 is hereby allowed. [ii]The applicant/accused Abhishek Eknath Kadam inC.R.No.120/2025 of Dharashiv City Police Station shall be released onbail upon furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FiftyThousand only) with one solvent and one local surety in the likeamount. [iii]The applicant/accused shall not temper with the evidence. [iv]The applicant/accused shall attend concerned police station onevery Saturday in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. till filing of thecharge sheet.khs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 3 -[v]The applicant/accused shall not abscond and he should furnishhis full residence address alongwith address proof of his two closerelatives. [vi]Applicant shall not repeat the offence while on bail and shallmaintain peace and law and order. [vii]Violation of any conditions imposed shall amount to cancellationof bail forthwith. [viii]Bail before the concerned court. [ix]Inform concerned police station accordingly. 3.The learned Sessions Court has observed in the order dated09.07.2025 that the appellant has violated condition Nos.3 and 4 andtherefore pleased to cancel the bail granted to the appellant. Therefore,the appellant has approached this Court for quashing and setting asidethe said order. 4.On 16.04.2025, the learned Sessions Court was pleased togrant bail to the appellant in Crime No.120/2025. Vide CrimeNo.120/2025, the mother of deceased Sakshi has filed complaint withan allegation that due to abetment and instigation at the hands of theappellant and his sister, her daughter committed suicide. It is the caseof the prosecution that the deceased and the appellant were having lovekhs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 4 -affair and they were taking education in the same educationalinstitution. When the family of Sakshi got knowledge about the saidlove relationship, they decided to fix her marriage with another boy.However, even after her engagement, the appellant and his sistercontinued the harassment due to which, the deceased committedsuicide. 5.In pursuance to the aforesaid crime, the appellant wasarrested on 03.04.2025. He has filed Cri.Bail Application No.136/2025.The learned Sessions Court, while allowing the said bail applicationvide order dated 16.04.2025, was pleased to grant bail to the appellanton certain conditions, which are reproduced in paragraph No.2.Condition Nos.3 and 4, which are relevant for the purpose ofadjudication of this petition are as under :-[iii]The applicant/accused shall not temper with the evidence. [iv]The applicant/accused shall attend concerned police station onevery Saturday in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. till filing of thecharge sheet.6.According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, thelearned Sessions Judge has wrongly observed that the appellant haskhs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 5 -violated the conditions imposed upon him by the Court. According tothe learned Advocate for the appellant, vague allegations of violation ofconditions is alleged by the prosecution. Very strong and cogentcircumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail.He further submits that once the bail granted should not be cancelled inmechanical manner. No cogent and overwhelming circumstances havebeen pointed out by the prosecution and there is no necessity to cancelthe bail. According to him, the appellant has not violated any of theconditions. He has appeared before the concerned authority and co-operated the Investigating Officer on each and every date. As such,there is no breach of condition at the hands of appellant. He hasfurther submitted that after grant of bail, the informant has filedvarious NC reports as regards threats given to them. Since theinvestigation is already over and charge sheet has been filed against theaccused persons, the learned Sessions Court ought not to have cancelthe bail granted to the appellant without furnishing any satisfactoryreasons. Hence he prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugnedorder passed by the learned Sessions Court. 7.This Court, on 30.07.2025 has granted ad-interim relief tokhs/Sept.2025/559-25
Legal Reasoning
- 6 -the appellant in terms of prayer clause ‘C’ subject to condition that heshall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called.During the course of hearing, the learned Advocate for the appellantsubmitted the judgment pronounced by this Court in the case of AjitSonbhau Gawade Vs. The State of Maharashtra [2017 All MR (Cri.)4263].8.In order to respond to the allegation of the prosecution asregards absence of the applicant before the Investigating Officer, thelearned Advocate for the appellant relying upon the said authority,submitted that in pursuance to the directions of the learned SessionsCourt, he remained present before the Investigating Officer regularly,but on one occasion, he could not attend the Investigating Officer andthe prosecution is not pointing out any prejudice caused to them due tosuch absence. As no such prejudice has been pointed out in theapplication for cancellation of bail, the ground of absence before theInvestigating Officer is meaningless. 9.After going through the memo of the appeal and thesubmissions made by the appellant, it is clear that at one instance, hekhs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 7 -was directed to attend the police station, However, the InvestigatingOfficer in the instant case was S.D.P.O. to whom the investigation washanded over in view of the provisions of the Prevention of S.C. and S.T.Act. So he remained absent before the said authority instead of PoliceStation. Therefore, in such contingency, it cannot be said that he wasabsent by not attending the police station on the concerned date.Moreover, as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellant, theprosecution has not pointed out any hardship or difficulty caused tothem due to such absence of the appellant before the Police Station orthe Investigating Officer. 10.The learned Advocate for the appellant has also reliedupon the judgment in the case of Chandrashekar Rangrao DeshmukhVs. State of Maharashtra and others [2006 ALL.M.R. (Cri.) 2498 =2006(5) Mh.L.J.711], wherein he has invited the attention of this Courtto paragraph No.9, wherein it has been observed that the bail grantedearlier cannot be cancelled on the basis of mere allegations unlesstruthfulness of the allegation is established. In the said judgment,reference of the Apex Court judgment in the matter of MehboobDawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.)(S.C.)khs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 8 -840 : 2004(2) S.C.C. 362 is made. In the said case, there wereallegations in respect of threats and referring to that aspect, the ApexCourt has observed in the judgment that mere assertion of allegedthreat to witnesses should not be utilized as a ground for cancellationof bail, routinely. Otherwise, there is ample scope for making suchallegation to nullify the bail granted. The Court before which suchallegations are made should in each case carefully weigh theacceptability of the allegations and pass orders as circumstanceswarranting law. Such matters should be dealt with expeditiously sothat actual interference with the ordinary and normal course of justiceis nipped in the bud and an irretrievable stage is not reached. 11.The observations made by the Apex Court in the case ofMehboob (supra) are clearly attracted in the present case also. Theconditions to be imposed while granting bail are contemplated u/s437(3) r/w Section 439(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. The question that ariseshere is whether a violation of the said condition should result in thecancellation of bail in all the cases. Merely because of the reason thatsuch a condition was imposed while granting bail to the accused, thatwould not result in the cancellation of bail automatically This iskhs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 9 -particularly because, since the order of cancellation of bail is somethingthat affects the personal liberty of a person, which is guaranteed underArticle 21 of the Constitution of India, unless there are reasonsjustifying or warranting such an order, the bail already granted cannotbe cancelled. 12.In Dolat Ram and others Vs.State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC349, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :-“5. Rejection of bail in a non bailable case at the initial stage and thecancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with ondifferent basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances arenecessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, alreadygranted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail,broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are interference or attempt tointerfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion orattempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessiongranted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, onthe basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of theaccused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation ofbail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in amechanical manner without considering whether any superveningcircumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial toallow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession ofbail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of bykhs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 10 -the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. TheHigh Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factorsrelevant for rejecting bail in a non bailable case in the first instance andthe cancellation of bail already granted."13.Likewise in Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[(2018) 3 SCC 22 : (AIR 2018 SC 980)], it was observed by the ApexCourt that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessaryfor an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted.Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail are,interference or attempt to interfere with the due course ofadministration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due courseof justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in anymanner. 14.In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelledin a mechanical manner without considering whether any superveningcircumstances have rendered it no longer conductive to a fair trial toallow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession ofbail during the trial. khs/Sept.2025/559-25
Decision
- 11 -15.In view of the above referred observations by the Hon’bleApex Court, it is clear that the bail cancelled by the learned SessionsJudge on the basis of violation of the conditions alleged to have beenput in clause 3 and 4 of the order dated 09.07.2025 needs to bequashed and set aside. 16.In view of the above, following is the order :-(a)The appeal is allowed.(b)The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge andSpecial Judge, Osmanabad in Cri.M.A.No.38/2025 dated 09.07.2025 ishereby quashed and set aside. (c)The applicant Abhishek Eknath Kadam be released on bail, inCrime No.120/2025 registered with Dharashiv City Police Station,Dharashiv for the offences punishable u/s 108, 3(5) of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita, 2023 and u/s 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, on his furnishingPR bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only) with one solventsurety in the like amount.(d)The ad-interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated30.07.2025 stands vacated. The learned Trial Court to proceed withkhs/Sept.2025/559-25 - 12 -the hearing of the proceedings, as the charge sheet is already filed.(e)The appellant shall attend each and every date of hearing asdirected by the learned Trial Court. (f)It is made clear that the observations made in this order areprima facie in nature for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal only.17.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)khs/Sept.2025/559-25