Sidhaling Bhimaraya Dandavat v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

1 907) appln73-15.doc SAS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2015 Sidhaling Bhimaraya Dandavat ..Applicant.

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..Respondents.

None for the applicant.

Smt.Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the respondent-State. Mr.Saghar Tambe i/b. Ritesh Thode for respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : JANUARY 10, 2019 P.C.:- None present for the applicant. Heard learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2.

This is an application taken out by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant is consistently remaining absent in the proceedings, so also the applicant. As

2 907) appln73-15.doc such, today the matter is listed under the caption 'for dismissal'. 4.

The complaint lodged on June 21, 2013 has resulted in registration of crime No.108/2013 for offence punishable under section 143, 147, 453, 452, 325, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated November 8, 2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1004/2013 was pleased to release respondent Nos.2 and 3 on bail. The complainant thereafter moved an application under section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail before the learned Sessions judge being Criminal M.A.No.1218/2014, which came to be rejected vide order dated November 27, 2014. Hence the present application. 5.

Perused the order granting bail to respondent Nos.2 and 3 which is supported by convincing reasons. So also, the order of rejection of prayer for cancellation of bail has considered all the facets and the nature of the offence alleged against respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I hardly notice any reason which warrants cancellation of bail granted to

3 907) appln73-15.doc respondent Nos.2 and 3. Even otherwise, the offence is registered in the year 2013 and no purpose will be served by ordering cancellation of bail in 2019. As such, the application is rejected. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)