Cancellations of bail require very strong and cogent reasons, especially when considering incidents that occurred after bail was granted; mere allegations are insufficient without substantial proof.

ORDER :

Suman Shyam, J.

1. This Criminal Application is filed by the State of Maharashtra under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNSS ”) seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the Respondent/Original Accused No. 1, Madurai @ Madra Devendra Mariappan in Criminal Application No. 506 of 2019 arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 2019 on the ground that the Respondent has violated the bail conditions. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the sole Respondent/Original Accused No. 1, along with three other co-accused, was prosecuted for committing the murder of one Mari Raman Devendra. On conclusion of trial the Respondent was convicted under Section 302 of IPC by the judgement and order dated 18^th February 2019 passed by Additional learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 835 of 2014 arising out of C.R. No.285/2014 registered with Juhu Police Station, for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Assailing the Judgment and Order dated 18th February 2019, the Respondent has preferred Criminal Appeal No 467 of 2019 which is pending disposal. On an interlocutory application being Criminal Application No. 506 of 2019 filed by the Respondent seeking bail, a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Shri BP Dharmadhikari & Smt Swapna S Joshi, JJ) had passed order dated 7th August 2019 suspending the jail sentence of the Respondent thus directing his release on bail. The conditions of bail, as laid down in the order dated 7th August 2019, are produced here-in-below for ready reference :

(a) The applicant shall execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- before the trial court for proper behaviour and for remaining present on due dates before the Court in the present matter with two independent sureties in the like amount;

(b) He shall give address at which he shall always be available during the pendency of this appeal along with his contact numbers;

(c) Similar details in relation to his sureties shall also be furnished;

(d) He shall not in any way directly or indirectly attempt to contact or pressurize either complainant or any of the witnesses in the matter;

(e) He shall keep vakalatnama of his advocate alive and valid till the appeal is finally decided by this Court and shall not be entitled to any fresh notice at the stage of final hearing;

(f) He shall report to the Superintendent/Registrar of Sessions Court, Mumbai on first working Monday in every two months as a condition of his release;

(g) His failure to observe any of the terms and conditions shall entitle the respondent State to take him in custody forthwith;

(h) Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

2. According to the State, the Respondent has violated the bail conditions by threatening one Dinesh Kannaswami Devendra as a result of which offence bearing C.R.No.120/2024 has been registered against him in Juhu Police Station under sections 324,504,506(2), 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC). According to the State, after his release on bail vide order dated 7^th August, 2019, as many as three offences have been registered against the respondent. It has, therefore, been contended that the respondent is a habitual offender who has acted in violation of the bail conditions set out by this court. He has no respect for law. As such, if the respondent is allowed to remain on bail, there is every likelihood that he may again threaten witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Therefore, his bail is liable to be cancelled. In order to substantiate the above plea, the Applicant-State has invited the attention of this court to the said three offences registered against the Respondent arising out of incidents which took place subs