1 10appln42.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 42 OF 2026 SAGAR KUSHKUMAR VERULKAR VS PRAFFUL RAGHUNATH DANE AND ANOTHER. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. Mayuri Lende, counsel h/f Mr. V.R. Borkar, counsel for applicant. Mr. G.S. Umale, AGP for respondent/State. Ms Radha Mishra, counsel (appointed) for respondent No.1. CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATED : 11-09-2026 1. Heard. 2. By the present application, the applicant/informant seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to non- applicant No.1/accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, vide order dated 12/09/2023 passed in Criminal Application (ABA) No.229 of 2023, thereby non- applicant No.1 was enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.478 of 2023 registered with Nandura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 324, 327, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Needless to say, that by order dated 12/09/2023 passed in Criminal Application (ABA) No.229 of 2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, enlarged non-applicant No.1/accused on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions imposed was that non-applicant No.1 shall attend the concerned Police 2 10appln42.2026.odt Station every Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. and co-operate with the investigation for a period of 60 days or till filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant/informant came to know through reliable sources that non-applicant No.1 did not attend the concerned Police Station in compliance with the aforesaid condition, despite the specific direction issued by the learned Sessions Court. It is, therefore, submitted that non-applicant No.1 has breached the condition of bail and, hence, the anticipatory bail granted to him deserves to be cancelled. 5. Per contra, learned APP canvassed that although the learned trial Court, while granting anticipatory bail on 12/09/2023 to non-applicant No.1, had directed him to attend the concerned Police Station every Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., but he failed to comply with the said condition. 6. Needless to say, non-applicant No.2/prosecution has filed its reply and specifically stated that non-applicant No.1 had failed to attend the concerned Police Station in compliance with the condition of bail and, thereby, had committed a breach of the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Court while enlarging him on anticipatory bail. However, the Investigating Officer has stated that charge-sheet No.177 of 2024 was filed before the Competent Court on 26/08/2024. The filing of the charge-sheet, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of compliance with the condition of bail regarding 3 10appln42.2026.odt attendance at the Police Station. At the same time, though the order dated 12/09/2023 specifically required non- applicant No.1 to attend the concerned Police Station every Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., the Investigating Officer has not produced the Station Diary or any other record maintained by the Police Station / Investigating Officer showing the attendance of non- applicant No.1. 7. In the absence of such material, merely on the basis of the information received by the applicant regarding the alleged non-attendance of non-applicant No.1/accused at the concerned Police Station, it would not be appropriate to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out any substantial ground for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 9. Fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per the Rules. (Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) rkn Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 18:47:56