After an accused is released on bail and serious offences are invoked at a later point of time, there is no requirement for cancellation of bail, only a permission to arrest the accused is needed.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S Patil, J. - Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioners are impugning the order whereby the regular bail granted to them under the provision of Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been cancelled, post a request put up by the prosecution, to add, in addition to the earlier sections under the Indian Penal Code, the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter 'the MCOC Act') after a sanction under Section 21 of the MCOC Act was received.

3. The learned Senior advocate Mr. Deshmukkh would submit that the petitioners were granted a regular bail and in the absence of any supervening circumstance or a breach of terms and conditions subject to which the bail was granted, it could not have been cancelled. He would submit that merely because the provision of the MCOC Act were invoked at a later point of time that would not constitute a supervening circumstance. Liberty ought not have been curtailed in the manner in which it had been done. There are circumstances to indicate that the petitioner is being falsely involved under a serious charge. There is material to prima facie demonstrate that the sanctioning authority was perhaps hand-in-gloves with the original informant. A tainted sanction is not a sanction in the eye of law.

4. The learned Senior advocate would further point out that reliance placed by the learned Judge in the decision of Sarang Arvind Goswamy Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 3 MhLJ 774 and Pradip Ram Vs. The State of Jharkhand, (2019) 17 SCC 326, is misplaced. Both the decisions can be distinguished on facts. As can be seen, the accused therein, though were granted bail were already in custody in some other crime which is not a fact situation in the matter in hand. The learned Senior advocate would further point out that in the case of Narendra @ Naresh Kavdidas Chavan Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr., ; Criminal WP No.165/2017, this Court in the similar set of facts refused to cancel the bail and the view taken in that be subscribed even in the matter in hand.

5. The learned Prosecutor and the learned advocate Mr. Rathi for the original informant strongly oppose the Writ Petitions and submit that invoking a serious charge at later point of time is indeed a supervening circumstance, the cognizance of which ought to be taken for cancelling the bail. They submit that not only in the case of Sarang A. Goswamy (supra) but in couple of other subsequent decisions, Vijendra Molchand Kuril Vs. State of Maharashtra ; Criminal Application (APL) No.7/2016 and Karan Ranjit Paropate Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., ; Criminal Writ Petition No.1029/2017, this Court has taken same stand, referring to the decision in the case of Sarang A. Goswamy. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order which merely follows the decision in the case of Sarang A. Goswamy.

6. The learned Prosecutor and the learned advocate Mr. Rathi would also point out that the decision in the case of Narendra @ Naresh Kavidas Chavan (supra) which is later in point of time does not refer to the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Sarang A. Goswamy and the learned Judge while passing the impugned order has rightly refused to rely upon the former decision.

7. The learned Prosecutor and the learned advocate Mr. Rathi would lastly submit that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Ram (supra) now sets the controversy at rest. They would point out that in fact, in such a fact situation where some aggravated offences are invoked at later point of time after grant of bail, a relief of cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required and only a permission to arrest the accused who has been granted bail is contemplated. The learned advocate would pertinently point out the f