1

38-ACB-110-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 110 OF 2022

Mayur Sarangdhar Patil,

Age 26 years, Occu.

R/o. Sakegaon, Tq. Bhusawal,

District Jalgaon

..

Applicant

(Original complainant)

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

Through Police Inspector,

Taluka Police Station,

Bhusawal, District Jalgaon

2.

Ishwar @ Rahul Santosh Koli,

Age 19 years, Occu. Agri. & Labour,

3.

Vishal s/o. Subhash Koli,

Age 25 years, Occu. Agri. & Labour,

4.

Subhash s/o. Shamrao Koli,

Age 55 years, Occu. Agri. & Labour,

Nos. 2 to 4 R/o. Sakegaon,

Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

..

Respondents

(Nos. 2 to 4 – original

Accused No.1, 3 & 4 )

Mr. Hemantkumar F. Pawar, Advocate for Applicant;

Mr. K. S. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State;

Mr. Vinod Prakash Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4

CORAM :

S. G. MEHARE, J.

Reserved on : 09-12-2022

Pronounced on : 21-12-2022

ORDER

1.

The complainant has filed this application under Section

439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for cancellation of bail

2

38-ACB-110-22.odt

granted to respondents No.2, 3 and 4 by Additional Sessions Judge,

Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, in Criminal bail Application No. 592 of

2021, dated 30.09.2021.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and

the learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 4/accused and

the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

3.

The learned counsel for the complainant/applicant has

vehemently argued that the learned Sessions Court, while granting

bail, failed to consider the allegations levelled against respondent

Nos. 2 to 4. The recovery of weapons at the instance of

respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has also been not considered. The victim

was assaulted on vital part. The aggressive acts of the applicant

coming to the house of the complainant and assaulting him with

weapon has also not been considered. The order granting bail is

without appropriate reasons and without considering the material

on record. This Court has cancelled bail granted by the same

Judicial Officer to the co-accused in similarly situated case.

4.

The complainant had challenged the said order before the

Honourable Supreme Court. However, the said special leave to

bail was also dismissed. Heavily relying on the view taken by this

Court cancelling the bail of this applicant, the learned counsel for

the applicant would submit that the same principles would apply

to the case in hand. He prayed to allow the application.

3

38-ACB-110-22.odt

5.

The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has

vehemently argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has

considered the material placed on record. The case diary was also

perused. The learned Judge, while granting bail, has given reason

that the statements of material witnesses have been recorded.

There were no criminal antecedents against the respondents. On

perusing the application, it appears that there are sufficient

grounds to release them on bail. The order granting bail does not

reflect that there was non application of mind and without

considering entire material placed before the Court.

6.

This Court, in the case the State of Maharashtra Versus

Mayur Sarangdhar Patil and another, in ACB/222/2021 dated

06.06.2022, filed by the complainant, has discussed the law as

regards the principles granting bail.

7.

In the above case filed by the complainant, this Court held

that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal, has not

considered the material that was placed before him in the charge-

sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while

deciding the bail applications filed by the respondents. However,

instead of carrying out desired exercise, he has adopted a cryptic

way. This Court also referred to the ratio laid down by the

Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Brijmani Devi Versus

Pappu Kuma