1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 39 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2024 ANANDA VITHOBA GAWALI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ingole Govind Rangrao APP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.B. Dhaware Advocate for assist to APP : Mr. M. R. Jamdhade … CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 11.06.2025 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned APP and learned Advocate for assist to APP. 2. This application is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 3, Nanded, dated 15.12.2023, at exhibit 9 in Sessions Case No. 162/2023. Learned Judge by way of impugned order has canceled the bail granted to the applicant for not obeying the conditions imposed while granting bail by this Court. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that he has not violated any condition. Respondent no. 3 has filed false complaints against the applicant just to create ground for cancellation of order of bail. To cancel the bail which is already granted, some more material is 2025:BHC-AUG:14805 2 required. The complaints filed are in fact registered as NC. Therefore, in the complaint falsely showing the involvement in the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He thus prays for quashing and setting aside the order. 4. Learned APP so also learned Advocate for assist to APP vehemently opposed the application. They submit that when this Court had imposed the condition to not to enter in village Ardhapur, the applicant still violated the condition. Not only he entered in the Ardhapur village, but also gave threats to the complainant asking the complainant to withdraw the cases. It is submitted that looking to this serious conduct of the applicant, the Sessions Court has passed the impugned order. No interference is called for. 5. This Court has gone through the material. Learned Sessions Judge has considered that the applicant has violated the conditions imposed upon him making the complainant to file three NCs against the applicant. It does not appear that after registration of NCs, the complainant has taken any other step to get the offences registered, neither private compliant is filed. This Court thus find that merely because of NCs are filed, the order of bail should not have been 3 cancelled. It has already come on record that there is a civil dispute between the parties as they are related to each other. This Court finds that instead of cancelling of bail, some strict conditions could have been imposed. Looking to the material, this Court has find that instead of cancelling the bail the following order shall be passed in the interest of justice. It is made clear that even after this order, if there is any violation of the conditions, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. ORDER i. The application is partly allowed. ii. The applicant shall not enter the limits of Ardhapur Taluka till the trial is over. iii. The Trial Court to complete the trial at the earliest and in any case by the end of 30.09.2025. iv. In view of this, application stands disposed of. v. Pending Criminal Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) spc/-