9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Kshirsagar lodged a complaint with Kranti Chowk police station, Aurangabad on 27th March, 1994 alleging offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 and 477A read with 34, Indian Penal Code against the applicant-accused. It is alleged that the accused is the proprietor of Vinod Enterprises, from whom the complainant purchased a television set on installments by paying ₹ 2,700/- in cash out of total price of 9,370/-. It is alleged that his signatures were secured on some papers by the accused at the time of this transaction on 21st December, 1988. On 21st February, 1994 the complainant received a notice from Housing Finance Corporation informing that a loan of ₹ 1,00,000/- was advanced to him and out of it, ₹ 32,331. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said order of rejection of P.C. remand, granting of M.C. remand as well as granting of bail. By an order dated 6-4-1994 the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad allowed the petition and the impugned orders were set aside and the accused was remanded to police custody. It is against this order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad that the accused has approached this Court in the present revision. 5. It is submitted by Shri Bora, learned Counsel for the applicant-accused that, the revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge was itself barred because of the specific provisions of section 397(2), Criminal Procedure Code, it being against an interlocutory order. It is further submitted that there is neither any evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for bail can always be renewed from time to time. That being so, the contention advanced on behalf of the Government that the impugned orders refusing to grant bail were not interlocutory and therefore appealable cannot be accepted. 9. Relying on the above decision, this Court in the case of Mohan alias Mannu Basantani v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Mah. L.R. 1556 ruled as follows : The order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order and in view of sub-section (2) of section 397 the revisional powers could not be exercised in respect of such interlocutory order. 10. Similarly, this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Namdeo Raoji and others, (1991)1 Mah. L.R. 379, held that orders of bail are essentially in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . C., have been enumerated by the Supreme court in several cases. It has been held and viewed that for cancellation of a bail there must be cogent and overwhelming evidence by the prosecution and the Court has to come to a conclusion that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses. It is further observed by the Supreme Court that there must be supervening circumstances so as to order cancellation of earlier bail. The Supreme Court in the case of The State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978 CriLJ 952 observed thus : Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed, without there being any supervening circumstances which would justify such a cancellation. In the said case, in the absence of any allegations regarding subsequent events which would disentitle the accused from continuing on bail and the allegations regarding tampering of evidence or likelihood of the accused absconding, it was ultimately held that it was not a fit case for interference with the order in the revisional jurisdiction under section 397(1) or section 439(2), Cr. P.C. Similarly this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kirti v. Ambani, 1991 (1) BomCR 32 observed that for cancellation of bail already granted the prosecution must lead cogent and overwhelming evidence and the Court must exercise the power with due c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no allegations of any specific event which would disentitle the accused for continuing the bail. It is also important to note that the State does not even allege the non compliance of the conditions of daily attendance to the concerned police station by the accused. It may be noted at this juncture that before the Sessions Court the only grievance of the State was difficulty in collecting the record. In view of the fact that the accused is directed to attend the police station daily, the collection and seizure of the concerned record cannot be held to be impossible or impracticable. The bail in the case was granted on 28-3-1994 and the State moved the Sessions Court on 30-3-1994 in revision which came to be ultimately decided on 5-4-1994. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
