[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vitthal S/O Dattaram Ingole vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps ... on 3 December, 2025
1
apl1108.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1108/2025
(Vitthal S/o Dattaram Ingole and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Police Station Officer, Police
Station, Manora, Distt. Washim 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. A.A. Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejas S. Deshpande, Advocate for the
applicants.
Ms. Trupti Udeshi, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. N.R. Tekade, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
CORAM: MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 3.12.2025.
The applicants have filed this application to set aside the
common order dated 21.7.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Mangrulpir, District Washim cancelling the bail granted to the
applicants.
2. The applicants were arrested in Crime No.613/2021 for the
offence punishable under Sections 307 and 504 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicants were released on bail. In bail order, the
condition was imposed not to enter village where the complainant
and injured are staying. After relaxation of said condition, it is alleged
that the applicants started pressurizing the witnesses and complainant
by repeatedly threatening them. Thus, the applicants have committed
breach of condition imposed by the trial Court while granting bail.
The specific condition imposed in bail order against all the accused is
that the accused shall not directly or indirectly make any attempt to
influence the witnesses or otherwise tamper with the evidence and
co-operate in the investigation. As per condition No.(h) breach of any
condition will entail cancellation of bail and as per clause (i) the
apl1108.2025.odt
accused will not involve in any crime in future. Further, it is alleged
that after releasing the applicants on bail, they are threatening the
witnesses and pressuring them to settle the matter. The complainant
has lodged the complaints about the incidents with the police.
4. On the basis of N.Cs. registered against applicants the trial
Court has cancelled the bail and the applicants are in jail since
cancellation of their bail. The applicants have filed this application to
set aside the said order passed by the trial Court.
5. It is argued by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants
that mere assertion of alleged threatening to the witnesses by the
applicants should not be utilized for cancelling bail routinely. The trial
Court has overlooked the fact that there is an ample scope for
levelling such allegations against the applicants to nullify the bail
granted to them. The trial Court was duty-bound to carefully weigh
the acceptability of the allegations and thereafter pass necessary
order. Only on the basis of non-cognizable complaints registered
against the applicants bail was cancelled by the trial Court.
6. The applicants have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Phireram V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1915 wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has elaborately discussed about the principles governing the
cancellation of bail. The substance of the governing principles is that
if the accused tampers evidence, threatens witnesses or attempt to
subvert the trial, bail has to be withdrawn. This release is conditional
not absolute and subject always to the larger interest of ensuring a
fair trial. Considerations for cancellation of bail must always be on the
basis of the well settled principles as discussed aforesaid. There
apl1108.2025.odt
cannot be any extraneous considerations involved that are unknown
to the law of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehboob Dawood
Shaikh V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004) 2 SCC 362
observed in para 11 as under:-
"11. Learned counsel for the appellant is correct on
principles that mere assertion of an alleged threat to
witnesses should not be utilized as a ground for
cancellation of bail, routinely. Otherwise, there is ample
scope for making such allegation to nullify the bail
granted. The Court before which such allegations are
made should in each case carefully weigh the
acceptability of the allegations and pass orders as
circumstances warrant in law. Such matters should be
dealt with expeditiously so that actual interference with
the ordinary and normal course of justice is nipped in the
bud and an irretrievable stage is not reached."
7. This Court in the case of Nitin Shivdas Satpute V/s. State of
Maharashtra through the Police Station Officer and another reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2771 has observed that in non-cognizable
offences also, the investigation is necessary. It is necessary for the
Investigating Officer to approach the Magistrate to seek such
permission. The learned Senior Advocate has stated that without
verifying the N.Cs. which are lodged by the complainant, the bail is
cancelled. In fact, earlier N.Cs. were registered on the complaints
lodged by the applicants and to counter the same, complaints were
lodged against these applicants. Veracity of the N.Cs. is not verified
and, therefore, on the basis of said complaints,
non-cognizable offences were registered and the bail is cancelled.
8. The learned Senior Advocate for the applicants has submitted
that the cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the
liberty of an individual granted and is not likely to be resorted to.
apl1108.2025.odt
9. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala V/s.
Suni @ Sunil (Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.6238/2024) wherein it
is elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that N.C. offences
cannot be investigated without the order of Magistrate having power
to try such offence. The discussion in said authority is about Section
195 of I.P.C. The learned A.P.P. has argued that the applicants have
jumped the bail conditions imposed while granting bail and,
therefore, the trial Court has rightly cancelled the bail. It is submitted
that the applicant and the complainant including the witnesses,
injured are residing in front of each other. The family members of
injured are regularly threatened by the applicants and friends to the
extent that they are unable to move out from their house and unable
to attend any function in the village due to regular threatening and
quarrel from the applicants to settle the matter amicably. Further, the
applicants are regularly pressurizing the witnesses as to turn hostile at
the time of evidence. It is submitted that Gajanan Ramdas Ingole is
the main witness in the present crime. Said Gajanan Ingole is
pressurized by filing false complaints against him at police station on
9.4.2023. Further, said Gajanan Ingole is working at M.S.R.T.C. The
applicants have filed false complaint at M.S.R.T.C. Depot on
11.8.2023 making false allegations against said Gajanan Ingole.
10. Heard both sides and perused the record.
11. On perusal of record it appears that 3 N.Cs. are registered
against the applicants. The complainant and the investigating agency
filed an application before the Sessions Court for cancellation of bail
granted to these applicants. It is the settled principle of law that the
apl1108.2025.odt
power to cancel the bail has to be exercised judicially and not
mechanically. Generally, grounds of cancellation include interference
or attempt to interfere with the due cause or administration of justice.
In the instant case, on perusal of the record, it appears that initially
the applicants have filed N.Cs. against the
non-applicant/complainant on 11.8.2023 and on 1.3.2025. The
applicants have also approached the Depot Manager of M.S.R.T.C.
where one of the non-applicants is working as a Driver. Allegations
are made that he tried to put the bus on the person of one of the
applicants and, therefore, he has lodged the complaint. It appears
that thereafter N.Cs. were registered against these applicants. N.Cs.
were registered on 21.8.2023 and 27.2.2024 on the complaints
lodged by these applicants. Thereafter the non-applicants have lodged
the complaints and on the basis of said complaints, N.Cs. were
registered.
12. There is substance in the contention of the applicants that since
the alleged offences were non-cognizable, the Investigating Officer
had no opportunity of ascertaining or verifying the veracity of said
allegations. It reveals from the record that without being satisfied
that the applicants had in fact indulged in the alleged activities and
then misused the liberty and violated the conditions of bail, the bail
was cancelled. The counter N.Cs. were not considered by the trial
Court while cancellation of bail. The applicants and the non-
applicants are from one family and immediately after relaxation of
condition not to enter the village, the complainant started
complaining against the applicants. In view of above, it was necessary
for the investigating agency to ascertain whether the applicants had in
apl1108.2025.odt
fact misused the liberty or N.Cs. were filed by the first informant with
an object of frustrating and defeating the bail order.
13. The bail was granted on merits of the matter. The trial Court
has cancelled the bail and jeopardized the personal liberty of the
individual without even ascertaining the veracity of the allegations
made by the first informant and the witnesses in the said N.Cs. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Dolat Ram V/s. State of Haryana reported in
(1995) 1 SCC 349 has observed that bail once granted should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused
post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair
trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the
concession of bail during the trial.
14. In the case in hand apart from above said N.Cs. authenticity of
allegations was not ascertained. There was no such circumstance to
lead to the conclusion that the applicants were likely to tamper with
the prosecution evidence, misuse the concession of bail and impede
the cause of justice.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order cannot be
sustained. It is quashed and set aside.
16. The applicants - Vitthal S/o Dattaram Ingole, Harish S/o Vitthal
Ingole, Dnyaneshwar S/o Vitthal Ingole and Ram S/o Vitthal Ingole
shall be released on bail in Crime No.613/2021 for the offence
punishable under Sections 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- each with
one or two solvent sureties.
apl1108.2025.odt
17. The applicants are restrained from staying in the village where
the non-applicant/complainant is staying till the conclusion of trial.
18. Bail before the trial Court.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V.JOSHI, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/12/2025 18:12:36
