51-WP-4037-2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4037 OF 2025 Kunal Birwadkar …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents Mr. Kunal Birwadkar, the Petitioner present in-person (through Video Conferencing). Mrs. Savita M. Yadav, APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER 2026 PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Birwadkar, the Petitioner, who appears in-person through Video Conferencing and Mrs. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the order dated 1st February 2018 granting bail to the Respondent No.2 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, order dated 22nd December 2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Mumbai, rejecting the Page 1 Sonali 51-WP-4037-2025.DOC application for cancellation of the bail and the order dated 24th April 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, C.R. No.88, Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai, rejecting Criminal Appeal No.462 of 2024 challenging the said order dated 22nd December 2023. 3. Perusal of the record shows that the said C.R. No.208 of 2017 has been filed on 7th June 2017 under Sections 506(4) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). In the said case, by order dated 1st February 2018, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla has granted bail to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Application bearing Exhibit-15 was filed by the Petitioner i.e. First Informant/Complainant for cancellation of bail granted by said order dated 1st February 2018 to the Respondent No.2. By order dated 22nd December 2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, while rejecting the said Application, it has been observed that there ought to be supervening circumstances for cancellation of bail. Only on the allegation that the original Complainant has been threatened, without cogent and reliable evidence, personal liberty of the accused cannot be curtailed. The said order has been challenged by the Petitioner in- Page 2 Sonali 51-WP-4037-2025.DOC person by filing Criminal Appeal No.462 of 2024 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai and the said Appeal has been dismissed mainly on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 4. It is the submission made by the Petitioner in-person that the Petitioner has been threatened. To substantiate the contention that the Petitioner has been threatened, the Petitioner who has appeared in-person (through Video Conferencing) relied on the complaint dated 3rd July 2017 which he has filed to the higher authorities of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay annexed at Exhibit-F (pages 123 to 127 of the Writ Petition) and the complaint dated 11th December 2020 annexed at pages 129 to 131. However, the said complaints are dated 3rd July 2017 and 11th December 2020. Thus, the observations of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that the Petitioner has been threatened and therefore, liberty granted to the Respondent No.2 cannot be curtailed, is a possible view. Page 3 Sonali 51-WP-4037-2025.DOC 5. In any case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent No.2 has misused the liberty for last six years. 6. Accordingly, there is no substance in the prayer of the Petitioner to cancel the bail, which has been granted to the Respondent No.2 by order dated 1st February 2018. 7. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 4 Sonali SONALI MILIND PATIL Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2026.09.28 18:25:00 +0530