23.appln.51.26 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPLN] No.51 of 2026 The State of Maharashtra, through PSO, P.S. Kalmana, Nagpur vs. Uttam @ Baba Sapan Senapati =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mrs. H.S. Dhande, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Mr. Vishwas Nagole, Advocate for the Non-Applicant. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 17 th SEPTEMBER, 2 026. Heard Mrs. H.S. Dhande, learned A.P.P. for the applicant/State and Mr. Vishwas Nagole, learned Counsel for the non- applicant/accused at length. 2. By the present application, the prosecution prays for cancellation of bail granted by this Court on 01/04/2026 in connection with Crime No.491/2019 registered with Kalamana Police Station, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 326, 120-B, 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Mumbai Police Act and Sections 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. The learned A.P.P. canvassed that vide order dated 01/04/2026 passed in Criminal Application [BA] No.341/2026, the non- applicant/accused was enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.491/2019 registered with Kalamana Police Station on certain terms and conditions including conditions Nos.3 and 5. However, the non- applicant has breached conditions Nos.3 and 5. Therefore, it is necessary to cancel the bail and to take the non-applicant into custody during the pendency of the trial. 2026:BHC-NAG:12411 23.appln.51.26 2/2 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the non- applicant canvassed that a false FIR has been registered against the non- applicant and he has been falsely implicated in the crime, though the non-applicant is not connected with the crime. It is further canvassed that the non-applicant has cooperated with the Investigating Officer and, after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. So also, the non-applicant is regularly appearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned trial Court has already framed charge against the non-applicant and also some witnesses have been examined. Therefore, the non-applicant has not committed any breach of the bail order. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the application. 5. Needless to say that though the prosecution alleged that the non-applicant/accused has violated condition No.3 of the bail order dated 01/04/2026 passed in Criminal Application No.341/2026 and 4 to 5 non- cognizable offences are registered against the non-applicant, however, on perusal of the application, it does not depict that the present non- applicant has tampered with the witnesses or issued any threat or inducement. The prosecution has also not brought any material on record to show that the present non-applicant/accused did not attend the trial regularly. 6. On the other hand, it appears that the learned trial Court has already framed charge against the non-applicant and has also examined eight witnesses, which shows that the non-applicant is appearing before the trial Court. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present application. Hence, it is dismissed. JUDGE *sandesh Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 19:24:03