1 940 appln for cancellatin of bail 114.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 114 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2023 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Balaji Bhujangrao Mungal .. Respondent Mrs. Chaitali Choudhari-Kutti, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Shri S. R. Bagal, Advocate h/f Shri B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 03RD APRIL, 2025. FINAL ORDER : . Heard both sides. 2. Applicant is seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent – accused in respect of offence bearing C.R. No. 392/2023 registered with Nanded Rural Police Station for the offences punishable U/Sec. 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 323, 294, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, U/Sec. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and U/Sec. 4/25, 4/27 of the Arms Act. The respondent was enlarged on bail after filing of charge sheet. 3. The respondent was arrested on 02.06.2023. The charge 2025:BHC-AUG:9911 2 940 appln for cancellatin of bail 114.24 sheet was filed on 14.07.2023. After rejection of bail by the Sessions Court, the respondent had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2023. His appeal was allowed enlarging him on bail on certain conditions. It is alleged that he has committed breach of following two conditions : (iii) He shall attend the concerned police station once in a month for period of six months from today. (iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the respondent was found to be contacting and pressuring the informant and his father on 07.11.2023. Hence non cognizable offence was registered by Shravan. It is further submitted that the respondent did not attain the police station once in a month after the order enlarging him on bail. 5. Mr. Suraj Bagal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent relies on the affidavit in reply. My attention is adverted to para Nos. 4 to 6 to demonstrate the circumstances as to why his client failed to attend the police station. It is contended that non compliance is not deliberate, but due to compelling circumstances. It is further submitted that N. C. No. 643/2023 registered on 07.11.2023 is false because respondent secured job and at the relevant time he was on duty. 3 940 appln for cancellatin of bail 114.24 6. Having heard both sides, it reveals that the respondent was enlarged on bail on merits of the case imposing certain conditions vide order dated 20.09.2023. He was expected to report Nanded Rural Police Station once in a month for six months from the date of order. He was prohibited from contacting witnesses directly or indirectly. When he was enlarged on bail already investigation was over and charge sheet was filed. There was no question of any interrogation after the order dated 20.09.2023. 7. The ground of lack of communication of the order dated 20.09.2023 is not convincing, but there is no allegation that he has taken disadvantage of the condition No. (iii). Neither there are any malafides on his part for not reporting the police station. His conduct of attending the dates scrupulously for 33 times barring 10.07.2024 shows that earlier lapses on his part are unintentional and liable to be condoned. 8. Similarly, N.C. No. 643/2023 is pitted against him to castigate breach of condition No. (iv). In his reply he has tendered explanation of having secured a job and false implication in the offence. There is no reason to doubt the explanation prima facie. A solitary instance of 07.11.2023 is not sufficient to cancel the bail. However, more stringent condition can be imposed additionally. 9. A pragmatic approach needs to be taken in the matter. The 4 940 appln for cancellatin of bail 114.24 breach of conditions of earlier order of bail is not strong enough to revoke order of bail. No overwhelming circumstances are appearing so as to revoke the order and remand the respondent to the custody. I, therefore, pass following order. O R D E R a. The application for cancellation of bail is rejected. b. However, respondent is prohibited from entering village Bondhar Tarf Haveli, Tq. and Dist. Nanded till disposal of the Special Case No. 99 of 2023. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/April 25