Maroti S/O Pralhad Atram v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Gittikhadan Nagpur

2026:BHC-NAG:6473

(1) 17.revn.193.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2025 Maroti s/o Pralhad Atram Vs.

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. N. Naukarkar, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. A. M. Joshi, APP for State.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED : 27/03/2026 1.

Present revision application challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge - 19 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 26.09.2025 by which the application for cancellation of bail is rejected.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that the present applicant is the original complainant, who filed an application for cancellation of bail of the present non-applicant No.2 on the ground of breach of condition. It is contended that the present non-applicant was prosecuted of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The non-applicant No.2 got arrested on 21.04.2024 on an allegation that he abused the informant as he did not give money to him. He gave threat to the informant with the sharp weapon and caused the injury to him. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime. Thereafter, the non-applicant No.2 to approach to the

(2) 17.revn.193.2025 Sessions Court for grant of bail. The Sessions Court has considered the allegation levelled against the present applicant and also observed that as the weapon of the offence, clothes of the accused are already seized and therefore, his further custodial interrogation is not required and thereby he is released on bail. While releasing him on bail, the condition was imposed that the non-applicant No.2 who is the original accused shall cooperate to the investigating agency. He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner and he shall also furnish his own registered address, phone number and also the registered address and phone numbers of his two near or blood relatives to the Investigating Officer.

It is further directed that if default is committed by the present applicant, the prosecution is at liberty to ask for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant. Thereafter, the application came to be filed by the present applicant, who is the informant contending that the non-applicant No.2 has threatened him and the said incident was videographed by him. The transcription of the said videograph is placed on record. The NC report is also filed regarding the said threatening, and therefore, as the non-applicant No.2 has tampered the prosecution evidence, therefore, the bail granted to him deserves to be cancelled.

3.

After hearing both sides and on perusal of the NC report as well as the transcription, it reveals that the said NC report came to be filed on

(3) 17.revn.193.2025 30.07.2025. On perusal of the said NC report, admittedly, no specific instance is mentioned by mentioning the date, on which date the present non-applicant No.2 has threatened him as to pressurize him or for tempering the evidence. I have also perused the transcription which is filed on record regarding the video recording of the conversation. On perusal of the entire conversation, which was recorded it reveals that it was the abuses which are exchanged by both of them to each other. There is even no reference regarding the crime which is registered against the present applicant during that communication.

Therefore, the allegation levelled by the present applicant that he was threatened and the attempt was made to tamper and pressurize is not revealed either from the recitals of the transcription or from the recitals of the said NC report. It is well settled that while considering the application for cancellation of bail, the overwhelming circumstances are required, general and vague allegations are not sufficient to cancel the bail which is granted. In view of that, the revision application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

The application is dismissed.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/04/2026 18:07:33