The State Of Maharashtra v. Arun Janu Waringe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.706 OF 2013 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.996 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra ...

Applicant V/s.

Arun Janu Waringe ...

Respondent .....

Mrs.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Applicant/State.

Mr.Ganesh K. Gole, Advocate for the Respondent. Mrs.Prabha Bhadadare, Advocate for the Intervenor. ....

CORAM :

ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.

DATED :

24TH FEBRUARY, 2015 P.C.

1.

This is an application filed by the State of Maharashtra for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent who is one of the accused in C.R.No.147 of 2011. The applicant was released on bail in that case by this Court by an order dated 5th September 2012. Now the present application for cancellation of bail has been made on the ground that after the respondent released on bail, he has committed another offence, which has been registered vide C.R.No.I-129 of 2013 at Shivajinagar Police Station, Ambarnath.

1/3

2.

The First Informant in C.R.No.I-129 of 2013 had sought intervention in the matter and his application for intervention has been allowed. I have gone through the contents of the intervention application. Merely because the First Informant now exonerates the respondent, it may not be presumed that the respondent is not involved in C.R.No.I-129 of 2013. I have, therefore, carefully gone through the facts of the case as reflected in FIR. 3.

It is clear from the FIR registered in respect of C.R.No.I-129 of 2013 that the respondent has been named as one of the culprits only on the basis of suspicion. The First InformantShivaji was assaulted by two unknown persons and he suspected that the said unknown persons had assaulted him at the instance of respondent and his brother-Prakash. However, the First Informant-Shiavaji i.e. the intervenor, later on, realized that the respondent and his brother were actually not involved in the said case. The learned APP, on specifically questioning, submitted that the actual assailants, who have been arrested in C.R.No.I-129 of 2013, have not implicated the present respondent in any manner. 4.

Since the cancellation of bail is sought only on the ground that after release on bail, the respondent has committed another offence; and since it appears that there is no sufficient basis to show the involvement of the respondent in that another offence, there seems to be no reason to cancel the appeal granted to the respondent.

2/3

5.

The application is rejected.

(ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.) 3/3