Skip to content


State of Maharashtra Vs. Anil Baloba Donbe and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1983CriLJ1308
AppellantState of Maharashtra
RespondentAnil Baloba Donbe and ors.
Excerpt:
.....the court of session or the high court for such relief. thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not remediless and that would further buttress the above view. [jagannath singh v dr. ajay upadyay & anr 2006 cri lj 4274; 2006 (5) air bom r held per incuriam]. - on earlier two occasions applications for cancellation of bail were filed by the state and the said applications were rejected by the orders dated 23rd june, 1980 as well as 5th jan. in the present application no allegation is made about the involvement of the accused in any incident after 5-1-1981. in this view of the matter and in view of the earlier orders passed by this court on 23-6-1980 as well as 5-1-1981, even mr......in view of the dismissal of criminal application no. 846 of 1981, no order is necessary in criminal application no. 1340 of 1981 the accused are entitled to continue on bail in view of the earlier order passed by this court.
Judgment:

Dharmadhikari, J.

1. We are really surprised by these repeated applications being filed by the Police Officer for cancellation of bail granted to the accused. On earlier two occasions applications for cancellation of bail were filed by the State and the said applications were rejected by the orders dated 23rd June, 1980 as well as 5th Jan., 1981. In the present application it is contended that this Court rejected the said applications for cancellation of bail without passing speaking order. It is really surprising that such a complaint should have been made by the State Government. After hearing both the parties as this Court did not find any substance in the allegations made for cancellation of bail the said applications came to be rejected. The last of such applications came to be rejected on 5th Jan., 1981 and therefore, apparently this Court had considered all the allegations made and existing till that date. In the present application no allegation is made about the involvement of the accused in any incident after 5-1-1981. In this view of the matter and in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court on 23-6-1980 as well as 5-1-1981, even Mr. Barday, learned Public Prosecutor, found it difficult to support the present application. In our view, these repeated applications are being filed only to harass the accused persons and cannot serve any useful purpose unless a fresh material is placed before this Court, which will make out a case for cancellation of bail. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that this Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons in Criminal Revision Application No. 119 of 1981 on 10th March, 1981. Obviously the order for grant of anticipatory bail was passed after hearing the Public Prosecutor. In these circumstances, we hold that no case is made out for cancellation of bail granted to the accused.

2. In the result, therefore, Criminal Application No. 846 of 1981 is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Application No. 846 of 1981, no order is necessary in Criminal Application No. 1340 of 1981 The accused are entitled to continue on bail in view of the earlier order passed by this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //