Ashok S/O Madhvrao Baraskar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

crap6763.14 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6763 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6768 OF 2014 [Ashok Madhavrao Baraskar Vs The State of Maharashtra & anr.] _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court's or Judge's orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri V.S.Badakh, advocate for applicant Smt. V.A.Shinde, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 Shri R.R.Sancheti, advocate for respondent no.2 .....

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : 27th March, 2015 PER COURT :- 1] Shri V.S.Badakh, learned counsel for the applicant submitted very vehemently before this court that the present applications need to be allowed and anticipatory bail granted by this court on 15.9.2014 is required to be cancelled. 2] He submitted that the applicant received threat after the order passed by this court on 15.9.2014 and on that ground he submits that anticipatory bail granted should be cancelled. Curiously enough, said ground is clearly absent from the application. The grounds raised are that this court has committed error in granting anticipatory bail and the court should not have granted the same. If the applicant was aggrieved thereby, the fora is different and surely by the present application the applicant cannot try to get the order reviewed.

3] Further if threats were extended, the applicant could have approached to the police station and could have lodged the first information report against the present applicant.

crap6763.14 Thus, essential facts are also not averred in the application for cancellation of bail. In that view of the matter, the application is meritless and it deserves to be dismissed and ti is dismissed accordingly. Worth to note when the application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the respondent was allowed, the present applicant was party to the said anticipatory bail proceedings and was represented by the learned counsel and after hearing the applicant the anticipatory bail was granted by this court.

4] Both the Criminal Applications are dismissed. (V.M.DESHPANDE, J.) dbm/crap6763.14