CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.567/2026 PETITIONER : Nilesh S/o Vasantrao Vairagade, Aged about 32 years, Occ. : Business, R/o Chandurbazar, Tq. Chandurbazar, Dist. Amravati. ...VERSUS… RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Chandurbazar, Tq. Chandurbazar, Dist. Amravati. 2. Manoj S/o Ghanshyamdas Motwani, Aged about 50 years, Occ : Business, R/o Gurunanak Ward, Sindhi Colony, Hinganghat, Tq. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, APP for respondent No.1 Mr. Vikram Reddy, Advocate with Mr. U.K. Bisen, Advocate for respondent No.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 07/10/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the order dated 08/07/2024, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional 2026:BHC-NAG:13618 CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 2 Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur in Cri. M.A. No.80/2023, thereby cancelling the bail, granted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29/09/2023 in Crime No.209/2023. 3. Heard Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Kolhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, dated 08/07/2024, cancelling bail order, was passed only on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the fact before the learned Trial Court, that the application for grant of regular bail being Criminal Application (BA) No.790/2023 was already filed by the accused before the High Court, seeking regular bail. The said application was still pending and this fact was suppressed from the knowledge of the learned Trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar, which has ultimately resulted into passing of the order granting bail on 29/09/2023. Criminal Application (BA) No.790/2023 was filed before filing of the charge-sheet, seeking regular bail. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State has not disclosed the said information to the petitioner that a charge-sheet is filed even while filing their reply, which came to be filed on 15/09/2023, even though the charge-sheet was filed on 12/09/2023. This fact was not disclosed either by the learned Additional Public CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 3 Prosecutor appearing in the High Court in Criminal Application (BA) No.790/2023 either on 12/09/2023 or on 14/09/2023 when the matter was listed before this Court, wherein the State sought time to file reply. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as soon as the petitioner was informed about filing of the charge-sheet, a circulation was sought before this Court on 26/09/2023 for listing the matter on 27/09/2023 for withdrawal of Criminal Application (BA) No.790/2023, however, the office did not list the matter as per circulation, as the fixed date was given as 29/09/2023, as per the order passed by the Court on 14/09/2023. Due to such inadvertence and the matter not being listed, Criminal Application (BA) No.790/2023 remained to be withdrawn and was finally withdrawn on the date when it was fixed and listed i.e. on 29/09/2023. The application for grant of bail before the learned Trial Court was moved by the lawyer appearing before the learned Trial Court, without any information that the application before the High Court was withdrawn or not, which has resulted into passing of the order dated 29/09/2023, granting bail by the Trial Court and withdrawal on the same date. 5. The petitioner has no intention to either suppress any information from the learned Trial Court. The aforesaid act of not informing the Trial Court was not deliberate and it was only due to inadvertence and aforementioned circumstances. The order dated CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 4 29/09/2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar was passed on the merits of the case after taking into consideration the fact that the charge-sheet is also filed and the evidence was already collected by the prosecution. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, cancelling the bail granted vide order dated 29/09/2023 is arbitrary, erroneous, unjust and illegal without taking into consideration the explanation provided by the petitioner and his Counsel, who has filed a separate application to explain the circumstances under which the withdrawal of the bail application was delayed and it is only due to some miscommunication between the lawyer appearing in the High Court and the lawyer appearing before the Trial Court that such a situation had occurred, which has resulted into passing of the bail order dated 29/09/2023 on the application filed by the accused on 26/09/2023. 6. The aforesaid act was due to some inadvertent circumstances, which were beyond the control of the petitioner. There was no deliberate intention of the petitioner/accused to either suppress the fact of pendency of the bail application before the High Court. The State has also failed to provide the information about filing of the charge-sheet in its reply, which came to be filed on 15/09/2023, that the charge-sheet was already filed on 12/09/2023. In the aforesaid circumstances, the circulation was sought for withdrawal of bail CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 5 application, however, the matter could not be listed as the same was fixed on 29/09/2023 and as such, this has resulted into passing of order of withdrawal of bail application on 29/09/2023 and passing of the order granting bail on the same day i.e. 29/09/2023. There was no mischief or deliberate intentional act on the part of the petitioner or his lawyer appearing for him. The impugned order, cancelling bail, ignoring such a vital aspect of the matter, is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside, thereby maintaining the order of grant of bail, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar dated 29/09/2023. 7. As against this, Mr. Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2, strongly objects to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable, once the bail stands cancelled. The only option left with the accused is to file application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order for cancellation of bail. 8. Mr. Reddy, further relies upon the judgment delivered by the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Surya Naraian and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1999 Cri. LJ 496 to submit that proper course for the petitioner i.e. accused in such a case is to approach the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order of cancellation of bail. The order dated CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 6 29/09/2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar granting bail was on a suppression of the fact that identical bail application being Criminal Application (BA) No.790/2023 was already pending before the High Court. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge has rightly cancelled the impugned order dated 08/07/2024. The petitioner has deliberately suppressed the information and played mischief with both the Trial Court as well as this Court in suppressing the information about pendency of the application. Filing of the bail application before the Trial Court was suppressed before this Court and the filing of bail application before this Court was suppressed before the Trial Court. Thus, the deliberate act of the petitioner was taken a serious note of by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, which has resulted into passing of the impugned order dated 08/07/2024 cancelling the bail. The impugned order is just and proper and is thus liable to be maintained. The petitioner may therefore be directed to be arrested in view of cancellation of bail. He relies upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Walchand Hiralal Shaha and another, reported in 1996 CriL.J. 1102, wherein the Hon’ble Court has specifically observed that an order resulting from suppression of material facts and on a false statement is a nullity in law. CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 7 9. I have gone through the order dated 08/07/2024, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur. I have also gone through the order dated 29/09/2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar granting bail and the order passed by this Court on 29/09/2023 as well as the order dated 14/09/2023. 10. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dinesh Hilal Mahajan and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 543 has specifically observed as under :- “9. As regards the contention that the petitioners must seek bail afresh, it may be observed that the petitioners are, actually, not taken in custody. The petitioners cannot move an application for bail without surrendering themselves before the Court. Thus, the petitioners have no effective or efficacious remedy for challenging the order of cancellation of bail and as such, in my opinion, the writ petition is very much maintainable and in fact, should be entertained and decided on merits.” In the present case also since the petitioner was not taken into custody pursuant to the order cancelling the bail granted to him, Writ Petition in such circumstances is held to be maintainable. 11. Perusal of the order dated 14/09/2023 would show that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has sought time to file reply and the matter was fixed on 29/09/2023. Admittedly, the charge-sheet came to be filed on 12/09/2023, however, the order dated 14/09/2023 CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 8 does not record any such information being provided by the State about filing of the charge-sheet. The affidavit filed by the State is also placed on record and marked as “X” for the purpose of identification. Perusal of the affidavit also does not show that the State has informed about filing of the charge-sheet. The affidavit appears to have been filed before this Court on 15/09/2023. Record shows that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has filed an affidavit in the cancellation proceeding undertaken by the respondent No.2/complainant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The affidavit filed by the Counsel appearing in the High Court explains in detail the circumstances under which the order came to be passed on 29/09/2023. It is specifically stated in the affidavit as under :- “7. Be that as it may, upon receipt of the instruction. I the deponent have advised that in view of filing of charge sheet, the bail application before the Hon'ble High Court will require to be withdrawn and accordingly, I the deponent has sought circulation in the matter on 25/09/2023 for withdrawal of bail application which was granted for 27/09/2023. The note of granting circulation for 27/09/2023 is duly taken in the Kaccha Register maintained by the concerned clerk of the Registry of Hon'ble High Court. I the deponent has verified the said entry personally. However, on 27/09/2023, the bail matter was not listed before the Hon'ble High court and upon inquiry it was told that as the matter is already fixed for on 29/09/2023, the same has not been added on the board of 27/09/2023. On 28/09/2023 there was a holiday. On 29/09/2023, the matter was listed and accordingly the same was withdrawn by the Junior colleague of the deponent.” CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 9 12. Perusal of the order dated 29/09/2023 passed by this Court shows that the application came to be withdrawn as the charge-sheet is filed. The important fact which is to be noted is that the instructions are given by the relative of the accused, while the accused was in jail. Thus, whether such a charge-sheet was filed or an application was moved before the learned Trial Court or listed for hearing, whether the information was supplied on time to the learned Counsel for the petitioner appearing in the High Court or before the Trial Court is a matter, which needs consideration in such a situation. When the accused is in jail, it is difficult for taking appropriate instructions by the lawyers appearing for the accused from the relatives. In such a situation filing of application on 26/09/2023 before the Trial Court even during pendency of the application without being aware of withdrawal of bail and the explanation submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, appears to be probable and ought to have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. The impugned order cancelling bail only on the ground of suppression therefore does not appear to be proper, particularly in the background of the facts where the State itself has failed to inform the High Court about filing of the charge-sheet in its reply filed on 15/09/2023, which could be reflected from the order dated 14/09/2023. Thus, though this Court approves the observations made by Allahabad High Court in the case of Surya Narain CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 10 (supra), however, the fact required to be considered is whether such an act of suppression of fact is deliberate or not. The explanation provided by the petitioner and the Counsel in his affidavit filed before the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge that despite circulation it was not listed before the High Court for withdrawal, appears to be probable taking into consideration the record and the orders passed by this Court on the bail application bearing Criminal Application (BA) No.790/2023 dated 14/09/2023 and 29/09/2023. 13. The learned Magistrate has also granted bail on merits of the case after filing of the charge-sheet, whereas the Criminal Application (BA) No.790/2023 was filed for regular bail, even before filing of charge-sheet. The bail is not granted to the accused by the learned Magistrate on account of any suppression of facts on merits. 14. In such facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 08/07/2024, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur cancelling the regular bail granted vide order 29/09/2023 on merits of the case, suffers from an error and thus calls for interference of this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. Thus, I am inclined to pass the following order : - O R D E R (i) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. CRI. WP 567 of 2026 - Judgment.odt 11 (ii) The impugned order dated dated 08/07/2024, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur in Cri. M.A. No.80/2023, thereby cancelling the bail, granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar vide order dated 29/09/2023 in Crime No.209/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The order dated 29/09/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandur Bazar in Crime No.209/2023 granting bail is restored. (iv) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed off accordingly. (v) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) Wadkar Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 12/10/2026 16:05:33