Ayesha Aliasgar Warunkar @ Ayesha Gulab Sheikh v. Salim Liyakat Mujawar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No. 215 of 2023 Ayesha Aliasgar Warunkar @ Ayesha Gulab Sheikh Age 30 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Munnavar Housing Society, Tal. Mahabaleshwar, Dist. Satara.

...Applicant Vs.

1. Salim Liyakat Mujawar Age 30 years, Occ. Labourer, R/o. Babar Colony, Karanje Peth, Tal. Satara, Dist. Satara.

2. The State of Maharashtra At the instance of Shahupuri Police Station.

...Respondents

---- Ms Sakshee P Chavan, Legal Aid Appointed Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr M G Patil, APP for Respondent No.2 - State. ---- Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date:

2024.10.03 18:48:53 +0530 MAMTA AMAR KALE Coram: R. N. Laddha, J.

Date: 3 October 2024 P.C.

.

Heard Ms. Sakshee Chavan, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. G. Patil, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.2 /State.

2.

The applicant has preferred this application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused / respondent No.1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, by an order dated 26 April 2023, in connection with CR No.43 of 2021, registered at Shahupuri Police Station, Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 343, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3.

The applicant's contention is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that respondent No.1 has threatened the applicant. However, upon perusal of the records, it appears that the informant filed a non-cognizable complaint of the alleged threatening in the year 2020 before passing the impugned bail order.

4.

In Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, it was observed that bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled, if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail: (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. Moreover, it is a settled principle in law that during the preliminary bail stage, the Court should not engage in a detailed analysis of evidence or an exhaustive examination of the merits. Instead, focus is on a prima facie scrutiny of the material on record. Furthermore, once bail is granted, it should (2024) 4 SCC 222

not be cancelled without compelling or extraordinary circumstances, such as the risk of jeoparadising a fair trial, as highlighted in Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana2 and Puran Vs. Rambilas3. In view of the above, the application stands rejected.

R. N. Laddha, J.

(201) 6 SCC 338 (1995) 1 SCC 349