HIRANAND @ DABBU KIMMATRAM ASWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is preferred by the original complainant for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the present respondent No.2 in the matter of offence under sections 115 and 120B of IPC registered under CR No.39 of 2010 of Pimpri Police Station,Pune. Respondent No.2/original accused No.1 was arrested on 20th January, 2010 for the offence of conspiracy to kill the complainant - present applicant. Without going into much details as to various events happened regarding filing of bail applications before the trial Court and before this Court, suffice it to say that criminal bail application preferred before this Court bearing No. 704 of 2010 was granted on 10th March, 2010 (Coram : Shri B.R.Gavai,J). According to the applicant, respondent No.2 violated the conditions of bail and also indulged in criminal activities and a number of serious offences were registered against him. As such, according to the applicant - original complainant, respondent no.2 has rendered himself unworthy of liberty granted by the bail order and hence the application for cancellation of bail filed by the applicant bearing No.1844 of 2011.

(2.) THOUGH the present application for cancellation of bail was preferred long back in the year 2011, for various reasons it remained pending and when on last date the matter was taken up for the arguments, preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent No.2 as to maintainability of the application for cancellation of bail before this Court on the submission that firstly the complainant should go before the Sessions Court for cancellation of bail and after that he can come to High Court though the provisions of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. give concurrent jurisdiction to the Sessions Court and also to the High Court to entertain the application for cancellation of bail.

(3.) THE main points canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the applicant (original complainant) are twofold - firstly, the respondent had violated the conditions of bail inasmuch as he indulged in activity of threatening the prosecution witnesses and not attending the concerned police station on every Sunday, and secondly that he had indulged in criminal activities after his release on bail.