JUDGMENT:- Heard rival submissions at length on these applications for cancellation of regular bail. Criminal Application No.2855/2009 is preferred by the original first informant injured challenging the order of bail passed on 8.6.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag. By the said impugned order, bail application No.415 of 2009 preferred on the same day by present respondent Nos.1 to 3 was allowed granting them bail. The respondents are facing the charges punishable under Section 307 of IPC and also the offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons and also offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 341 of IPC.

2. Out of the present two applications for cancellation of bail, one is preferred by the original complainant as mentioned above, whereas the another one bearing Criminal Application No.3389 of 2009 is preferred by the State. Both the said applications were respectively preferred on 23rd June, 2009 and 21st July, 2009 i.e. almost within a reasonable time of granting of the bail. However, due to the systemic delay, present matters were taken today before this Court for final hearing and passing of the orders.

3. Certain earlier events are rather peculiar in nature and they are required to be mentioned with respective dates in order to ascertain whether now considering the effect in totality, it would be a case for cancellation of the bailor whether certain other orders and directions can be given for expeditious trial. The incident of rioting and deadly assault on the complainant and his other associates and friends occurred on the night of 29th December, 2007 when the complainant and others were proceeding in their vehicles. As and by way of a pre-arranged design their vehicles were accosted on the road by keeping two trucks on the both sides of the said vehicles and thereby damaging the vehicles in between the two trucks. The trucks were managed and handled by the associates of the present respondents. Present respondents were also party members to the unlawful assembly and were armed with deadly weapons in as much as present respondent No.1 was allegedly armed with hockey stick and respondent Nos.2 & 3 were armed with a sword each. Similarly such weapons mainly hockey sticks and iron bars were used by the other accused persons. In all there are 45 accused persons and all are on bail. Two of the accused persons died during pendency of the matter.

4. The litigation before this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court can be narrated in short as follows :- Present respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred anticipatory bail application in January, 2008 and on the same day it was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad.

After this, anticipatory bail application was preferred before this Court on 8.2.2008. However, it was withdrawn on 20.2.2008 after some hearing. Thereafter anticipatory bail application was again preferred before the concerned Sessions Court at Raigad by the present respondents. It was preferred on 27.3.2008 and after hearing the rival submissions anticipatory bail was granted on 23.4.2008. Being aggrieved by such grant of pre-arrest bail to the present respondents, the complainant preferred an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail before this Court on 9.5.2008. So also, the State of Maharashtra preferred separate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail on 11.7.2008. Both the said applications were heard by the another Bench and were allowed vide order dated 27.2.2009. Again, being aggrieved by such cancellation of anticipatory bail, present respondents approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP. Initially the order passed by this Court was stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and subsequently on 12.5.2009 on the submissions made by the concerned Counsel for the State, directions were given to the respondents to surrender before the concerned Sessions Court at Alibaug-Raigad within six weeks and to apply for regular bail. It appears that till then there was protection and there was stay to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document