The main legal point established is that suppression of vital facts and misrepresentation in bail applications can lead to the cancellation of bail. The Court also emphasized that bail should not be granted mechanically and serious infirmities in the bail order can justify its cancellation.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 8/12/2021 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.317 of 2020 cancelling bail granted to the petitioner by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai vide Order dtd. 11/5/2020 in C.C. No. 646/PW/2020.

2. The petitioner was arrested on 5/12/2019 in connection with C.R. No.670 of 2019 registered with Borivali Police Station, Mumbai on 2/12/2019 for offences punishable under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2) r/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

3. The First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was registered by respondent No.2 vide C.R. No.670 of 2019. It is alleged that he is social worker of jain Samaj. The office of Jain Samaj is situated at Aradhana Bhavan Mercury-B Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Plot No.478 & 488, Siddhivinayak complex, Chikuwadi, Borivali West, Mumbai Mercury Bungalow was sold to Soubhagya Vardhak Chikuwadi Shwetambar Murtipujak Tapgaccha Jain Sangh on 29/11/2017 by Smt. Meenakshi Trivedi and Dipen Trivedi by registered Sale Deed since than the Bungalow is in possession of Jain Sangha. The Complainant is authorised to look after the Bungalow. Religious programmes are conducted by Jain Sangha at the said premises. Mandar Borkar and Smita Deokar frequently visits the Bungalow and represent that Bungalow should be vacated since it has been purchased by them. They were informed that Bungalow has been purchased by executing registered Sale Deed. The said persons installed food stall near Bungalow. Complaint was made to Municipal Corporation and the stall is removed. Thereafter, the above persons threatened the complainant to vacate the premises or else he would face consequences. Complainant sought information through RTI from corporation. It was informed that water meter is in the name of Kirit Mehta and Smita Deokar has submitted application for operation of water meter. Copy of MOU on stamp paper of Rs.100.00 was also received. The document was notarized on 27/5/2015. There were signatures of Minakshi Trivedi, Dipen Trivedi, Mandar Borkar, Smita Borkar. The MOU was shown to Divesh Trivedi. He denied signature and execution of document with said persons. It is fabricated document. On 21/9/2019 complainant was threatened by Mandar Borkar. The accused have acted in connivance with each other and fabricated MOU on stamp paper of Rs.100.00 to show that Bungalow was purchased for Rs.1,75,00,000.00. Signatures of Minakshi Trivedi and Dipen Trivedi were forged. Simta Deokar submitted application to Corporation for transferring Water Meter to her name.

4. The petitioner preferred application for bail before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The said application was allowed by order dtd. 11/5/2020. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail. The respondent No.2 preferred application for cancellation of bail before the Sessions Court. The said application was allowed by order dtd. 8/12/2021 and bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court challenging the order dtd. 8/12/2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 5/12/2019. Investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed. Petitioner was in custody for substantial period. The learned Magistrate while granting bail has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is entitled for bail in accordance with Sec. 437(6) of Cr.P.C. She is a woman. Guidelines were issued pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court on account of spread of pandemic of Covid-19, to consider grant of bail. Charge-sheet was filed. Investigation is completed. Thus, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has however set aside the order of bail on erroneous consideration. On account of pandemic there was communication gap in giving instructions about