14.19revn (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2019 Digambar s/o Madhavrao Panchal VERSUS 1. Navalchand s/o Madanlal Jain 2. The State of Maharashtra ….. Mr Adil A. Shaikh, Advocate h/f Mr R. V. Gore, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Ms B. B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent No.2/State ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 29th AUGUST 2026 P. C. : 1. By way of this revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has approached this Court, challenging the impugned order dated 02/11/2018, passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Appeal No.57/2018. Vide the said impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1/accused, thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 05/10/2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded in Crime No.266/2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2026:BHC-AUG:41024 14.19revn (2) (a) The applicant is the complainant who had filed complaint against the respondent No.1 and his wife, alleging therein that accused had taken an amount of Rs.50.50 lakh from 14 persons including him, under the false pretext of providing service to them in MSEDCL. Therefore, Crime No.266/2017 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with the Bhagyanagar Police Station. (b) Respondent No.1/accused filed bail application which came to be allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded on 29/11/2017. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while granting the bail to respondent No.1 imposed certain conditions. (c) Thereafter, applicant preferred an application under Section 446(A) of the Code of Criminal procedure for cancellation of bail of respondent No.1 on account of disobeying the order dated 29/11/2017, and the said application came to be allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded vide order dated 05/10/2018. (d) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 05/10/2018, accused/respondent No.1 preferred appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.57/2018 before the learned Sessions Court. The 14.19revn (3) learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide the impugned order dated 02/11/2018, allowed the said appeal and set aside the order dated 05/10/2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded, thereby confirming the bail and directing respondent No.1/accused to strictly follow the terms and conditions of bail. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 02/11/2018 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, the revision applicant has preferred this revision application. 3. None is present for the applicant. Heard learned Advocate Mr Gore for respondent No.1 and the learned APP Ms Gunjal for respondent No.2/State. 4. According to the applicant, the respondent/accused, after granting the bail to him, has not followed the terms and conditions imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Applicant had sought information under the Right to Information Act as regards as to whether the respondent/accused is attending the police station in pursuance of the order granting bail to him. It was informed him that respondent/accused is not attending the police station regularly. Therefore, according to the applicant, respondent/accused has committed breach of terms and condition imposed upon him, and 14.19revn (4) therefore, he preferred this revision application seeking cancellation of bail. According to applicant, by passing the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Court has committed error in considering the provisions of law. According to him, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has imposed the conditions while granting bail and those have not been obeyed by respondent No.1/accused, and therefore, impugned judgment and order is perverse. 5. Mr Gore, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/accused supports the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and prays for dismissal of the present revision application. 6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent No.2, I have gone through the record available with the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded, vide order dated 05/10/2018 observed that respondent/accused has committed breach of condition of bail and never appeared at the Police Station, Bhagyanagar. He has also not followed the conditions imposed on him, and therefore, bail of the accused/respondent came to be rejected. The surety of the accused is also discharged and non-bailable warrant was issued against him. 14.19revn (5) 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded vide impugned order dated 02/11/2018, while confirming the bail, observed that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in pursuance of the powers under Sections 446 and 446A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cancelled the bail of the respondent/accused. It was further observed that, in view of the Section 446 of Code of Criminal Procedure, when the Court records reasons about non-fulfillment of conditions of bond, it may call upon the accused or surety, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not issue show-cause notice to the accused, as to why his bail bond should not be forfeited. Moreover, it was pointed out that the accused was in jail and he was not knowing about the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Consequently, since he was detained in jail, he had no means of knowing or complying with the said conditions. It was also observed that there was a mistake on the part of the Advocate for the accused, who could not point out to the learned Magistrate that the accused is in jail. However, for the fault on the part of the Advocate, the client should not suffer, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was not under Section 437(5) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail, but it was ordered under Sections 446 and 446 A of Cr.P.C. Thus, the 14.19revn (6) learned Sessions Judge observed that learned JMFC has not followed the proper procedure as laid down under Section 446 of Cr.P.C., and therefore, allowed the appeal and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, thereby forfeiting the surety came to be quashed and set aside and the respondent/accused was further directed to strictly follow the terms and conditions of bail. 8. The impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the year 2018 and the instant Criminal Revision Application is filed in the year 2019. This Court had issued notices to respondents on 24/09/2019. However, thereafter, this matter was never listed or circulated before this court. 9. In absence of anything to point out about the progress of the trial before the lower Court, it is not useful to consider the instant criminal revision application, as vide impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge simply continued the bail order of the respondent/accused, thereby cancelling the order of learned JMFC. 10. As there is no progress pointed out to this Court as regards the trial before the lower Court, this matter directing the respondent/accused to follow the conditions of the bail order, requires no interference. 14.19revn (7) 11. In view of above, this Court finds that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Looking to the scope of exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant criminal revision application, and hence, the same is dismissed. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] sjk