15.appln.43.26 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPLN] No.43 of 2026 Sagar Kushkumar Verulkar vs. Gajanan Janardhan Ingle and another =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. V.R. Borkar with Ms. P.L. Aamle, Advocates for the Applicant. Ms. Shreya Bhagat, Advocate (Appointed) for Non-Applicant No.1. Mr. H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant No.2/State. CORAM : Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 15 th SEPTEMBER, 2 026. Heard Mr. V.R. Borkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, Ms. Shreya Bhagat, learned Counsel appointed for non- applicant No.1 and Mr. H.D. Dubey, learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.2/prosecution. 02. By the present application, the applicant/informant takes exception to the order dated 11/03/2026 pssed in Criminal M.A. No.54/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, thereby declined to revoke the anticipatory bail granted on 29/08/2024 and enlarged non-applicant No.1/accused in connection with Crime No.478/2023 registered with Police Station Nandura, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Section 143, 323, 324, 327, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 03. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant canvassed that while passing the order dated 29/08/2024 in ABA No.224/2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, had imposed a condition upon the present non-applicant No.1/accused to attend the hearing of the case on every date, except for the reason beyond his control. However, subsequently, non-applicant No.1 never appeared before the Sessions 2026:BHC-NAG:12410 15.appln.43.26 2/3 Court and participated in the proceedings arising out of Crime No.478/2023. Therefore, the applicant had filed an application bearing Criminal M.A. No.54/2025 and prayed for cancellation of the bail. However, on 11/03/2026, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, passed the impugned order and rejected the application. Considering the fact of breach of the condition of the bail order dated 29/08/2024, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law. He, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order and also, prayed for cancellation of the bail. 04. Per contra, the learned APP submitted that after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has already been filed against the non- applicant No.1 and the trial has been committed to the Court of Session. 05. Non-applicant No.1 has filed a reply-cum-affidavit and contended that he regularly appeared before the trial Court. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on or about 26.08.2024, i.e. after the lapse of nearly one year, and he regularly attended the said proceedings. Therefore, the learned Sessions Court has passed the impugned order and declined to revoke the bail granted on 29/08/2024. The applicant has further undertaken to attend the said proceedings on each and every date, except for the reason beyond his control. So also, he will appear through his counsel on each and every date. 06. Needless to say that on 11/03/2026, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malkapur, passed an order in ABA No.224/2024 and enlarged non-applicant No.1/accused on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.478/2023 on certain terms and conditions, including the condition that the applicant shall attend the hearing of the case on every date, except for the reason beyond his control. On 11/03/2026, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order holding that there is no document produced on record to show that non-applicant 15.appln.43.26 3/3 No.1 was informed by issuing any communication about the filing of the charge-sheet, and that non-applicant No.1 had not deliberately remained absent. Non-applicant No.1 has furnished an undertaking that, hereinafter, he shall regularly attend and appear before the trial Court. The applicant has not brought any material on record to show that non- applicant No.1 intentionally and deliberately did not appear before the trial Court and remained absent. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present application. Hence, it is rejected. 07. The professional fees of the learned Counsel appointed for non-applicant No.1 be quantified and paid to her in accordance with the rules. JUDGE *sandesh Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 19:23:15