1 23. APPP 2175 of 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO.2175 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.492 OF 2026 (D) PRAJWAL SUBHASH MOHE VERSUS JEEVANSINGH S/O ZAMSINGH SOLANKE AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Non-Applicant Nos.1 & 2. Mr. A.B. Badar, APP for Non-Applicant No.3-State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 as well as learned APP for the State. 2. The application is filed by the applicant/original informant, for cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2026, in Criminal application No.492 of 2026, to non-applicant Nos.1 and 2, in connection with Crime No.292 of 2025, registered with Tamgaon Police Station, District Buldhana, on the ground that after being released on bail, they have violated condition No.(iv) incorporated in the said order. 2026:BHC-NAG:13032 2 23. APPP 2175 of 2026.odt 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the complaint filed by the applicant with Police Station Khamgaon City, wherein it is alleged that non-applicant No.1 viz. Sopan Digambar Solanke and non-applicant No.2 viz. Jeevansingh Zamsingh Solanke, after being released on bail, has threatened the applicant. He submits that the applicant is the informant in the crime registered at aforesaid police station and therefore, condition No.(iv) has been flouted by the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. Under such circumstances, the bail granted by this Court needs to be cancelled. He submits that, today, again counter affidavit is filed by the applicant and on affidavit, he has stated that he went to the office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Khamgaon, wherein non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 were also called by the police officials. He submits that it supports the contention of the applicant that the applicant and original accused persons i.e. non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 had been to the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police and at that time, they have threatened the applicant. Therefore, he prayed for cancellation of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned APP submits that a non-cognizable offence was registered against non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. However, after inquiry, nothing was found in support of allegation made by the applicant and therefore, he submits that appropriate orders may be passed. 3 23. APPP 2175 of 2026.odt 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 vehemently opposes the application and submits that this is an attempt to cancel the bail granted by this Court. He submits that no such incident had occurred. Merely on the basis of N.C. report, it cannot be said that non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 have violated condition No.(iv) and therefore, according to him, there is no merit in the application and same deserves to be rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. After going through the record, apparently, it appears that on the basis of N.C. report registered by the applicant, the present application is filed. This Court vide order dated 10.06.2026, while granting bail to non- applicant Nos.1 and 2, had imposed condition No.(iv), which reads as under. “iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence.” 7. It appears that the applicant has given application to Police Station Khamgaon, alleging that, on 18.06.2026, when he went to the office of Additional Superintendent of Police for submitting a complaint, at that time, at about 03.30 p.m. to 04.30 p.m., non- applicant Nos.1 and 2 were present in the said office and they have 4 23. APPP 2175 of 2026.odt threatened him. Accordingly, non cognizable report was registered against non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted after the permission by the Magistrate. The report which was tendered by the learned APP suggests that no corroborating evidence was found regarding the allegation made by the applicant. It is to be noted that the applicant himself is saying that on 18.06.2026, he went to the office of Additional Superintendent of Police, then why he did not intimate the fact of threatening by non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 to the officials present there. It is to be noted that the said incident was reported by the applicant after two days i.e. on 20.06.2026. Therefore, it creates doubt about the alleged incident. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to cancel the bail granted by this Court to non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the application is rejected. (M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) asd