RADHA BHIKCHAND GHITREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:1026


                                                                          ACB-63-2025
                                                 -1-


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                     APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 63 OF 2025
                          IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2025


                Radha Wd/o Bhikchand Ghitre
                Age : 49 years, Occu : Housewife,
                R/o : Plot No.37, Raje Sambhaji Colony,
                Jadhavwadi, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad.           … Applicant

                      Versus

                1.    The State of Maharashtra,
                      Through Superintendent of Police,
                      Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

                2.    Police Inspector,
                      Police Station Shillegaon,
                      Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

                3.    Bhanudas S/o Fakirrao Ghitre
                      Age : 50 Years, Occu : Teacher,
                      R/o: Flat No.3, First Avenue,
                      Jalannagar, Railway Station,
                      Aurangabad.                               … Respondents
                                                                [R.No.3 is original
                                                                 accused No.1]

                                                  …..
                             Mr. D. R. Shelke, Advocate for the Applicant.
                       Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State.
                      Dr. Anagha N. Pedgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                                  .....

                                        CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                        Reserved on        : 12.01.2026
                                        Pronounced on      : 13.01.2026
                                                           ACB-63-2025
                                  -2-

ORDER :

1.    Instant application by original informant is for cancellation of

bail granted to present respondent no.3 by order dated 7.02.2025 in

Bail Application No. 26 of 2025 in consequence to registration of

crime no. 0193 of 2023 registered at Shillegaon Police Station,

District Aurangabad, for offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324,

323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of IPC.


2.    Taking this Court through the FIR and papers, learned counsel

for applicant/informant would submit that applicant is seeking

cancellation of bail granted to main accused Bhanudas, against whom

there are allegations of overt act by hitting an uprooted iron pole i.e.

in assaulting deceased who allegedly suffered instant death. Learned

counsel took this Court through the postmortem report and more

particularly column no. 19 and would highlight the impact of the

assault. He would point out that offence was serious. That, main role

was attributed to accused respondent no.3. That, this Court had

granted bail on the ground of other accused to be on bail and on

account of incarceration for more than one and half years. He would

point out that, recently law has been settled that in cases of serious

nature, this Court can cancel bail even if it was granted and that,

ground of long incarceration is no good ground to extend the benefit
                                                          ACB-63-2025
                                  -3-

of bail. He pointed out that, considerations for grant of bail were not

taken into account by this Court. That, there was no medical reason

supported by any material to extend the benefit. Consequently it is his

submission that, going by the gravity of the offence, respondent being

main accused and being solely responsible for causing death, he was

not entitled for bail. In support of above submissions, Learned counsel

seeks reliance on the judgment of Ajwar v. Wasim and another (2024)

10 SCC 768, State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. 2025 SCC OnLine

SC 1702 and Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another

(2018) 12 SCC 129.


3.    Learned APP also joined in urging this Court to cancel the bail

and he too would point out that, serious offence is committed. That,

prior to the occurrence, application was forwarded to police for

extending police protection and tt is part of papers. Even according to

him, main role is attributed to accused/present respondent no.3 for

assaulting deceased with article like iron pipe which he allegedly took

over from another accused who had uprooted it. He pointed out that

there is video-graph as well as its panchanama on record and thus he

submits that, with serious allegations, respondent no.3 was not

entitled for benefit of bail. He further submitted that respondent is

also not attending trial court.
                                                           ACB-63-2025
                                  -4-

4.    Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 would take this

Court through the order passed by this Court while granting bail and

would submit that, after considering the submissions and papers, this

Court had granted bail on merits. According to her, it is fairly settled

position that bail once granted cannot be withdrawn. She urges to

take into account the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Dolat Ram and ors. v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 and

lastly would submit that there are no circumstances whatsoever for

withdrawing the benefit of bail granted earlier. She further submitted

that, now charges are already framed and case is awaiting trial.


5.    Present application is for cancellation of bail granted by this

Court by order dated 07.02.2025 in Bail Application No. 26 of 2025.

It seems that even at that time prosecution had opposed grant of bail

on the grounds that offence is under Section 302 IPC and there is

independent eye witness account regarding assault by present

respondent. This court has also taken into account the submission of

the then learned APP that there was video-graph of the occurrence.

This Court had heard both sides and had made discussion in para 4 of

the order. This court had noted that when the process of

measurement was in progress on 26.06.2023, alleged incident had

taken place. This Court had also noted that Dnyaneshwar had
                                                          ACB-63-2025
                                    -5-

uprooted the pole/angle and after he handed it over to present

respondent no.3, the same was put to use by inflicting blow on the

head of deceased as a result of which, he died. This Court in previous

order had visited the postmortem report and had noted about

probable cause of death to be complications following head injury.

Primarily this Court had noted that applicant was behind bars since

22.07.2023 i.e. since almost one and half years, and it was also noted

that it was not pointed out to this Court that there were immediate

prospects about matter going for trial. At that time, submissions were

made across the bar that by that day, even charges were not framed.

Such factors cumulatively prevailed over this Court for granting bail

by imposing conditions.


6.    Now, above order granting bail is sought to be cancelled.

However, while advancing the arguments, it is noticed that again

grounds/points of merits of the case are tried to be re-agitated by the

original complainant. There are no accusations of misuse of liberty

nor any supervening circumstances are brought to the notice of this

Court so as to recall the order of grant of bail.


7.    Law is fairly settled that bail once granted cannot be withdrawn

unless in exceptional cases. Law to this extent has been dealt in the

case of Dolat Ram (supra). Very recently also, the Hon’ble Apex Court
                                                          ACB-63-2025
                                  -6-

in the case of Abhimanue v. State of Kerla 2025 INSC 1136 has

elaborately discussed the judicial precedent on cancellation of bail

including the three Judge Bench judgment in the case of P. v. State of

Madhya Pradesh (2022) 15 SCC 211 wherein there is discussion on

the aspect of revocation of bail once granted. In the said case, the

Kerala High Court had cancelled the bail of five out of the ten accused

therein, and in appeal, the Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the said

order of Kerala High Court by leaning in favour of liberty rather than

its curtailment. Similar views are echoed in another judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Irshad @ Monu v. State of

Maharashtra reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1185. In the case of X v.

State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/0959/2025, in para 23, the

Hon’ble Apex Court has made following observations;

    “23. Recently, this Court in the case of Shabeen Ahmad v. The
    State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. MANU/SC/0301/2025 :
    2025:INSC:307 : (2025) 4 SCC 172 while placing reliance
    upon the case of Ajwar v. Waseem MANU/SC/0462/2024 :
    2024:INSC:438 : (2024) 10 SCC 768 cancelled the bail
    granted to the Accused in a dowry death case observing as
    follows:

       18.... A superficial application of bail parameters not
       only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but
       also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's
       resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is
       this very perception of justice, both within and outside
                                                    ACB-63-2025
                          -7-

the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk
normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous
innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of
bail in grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by
this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem in the following paras:

26 . While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal
offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like
the nature of the accusations made against the
Accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to
have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the
role attributed to the Accused, the criminal antecedents
of the Accused, the probability of tampering of the
witnesses and repeating the offence, if the Accused are
released on bail, the likelihood of the Accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility
of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts
of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the
Accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.
[Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., [ MANU/SC/0631/2004 :
2004:INSC:451 : (2004) 7 SCC 525]; Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [ MANU/SC/0214/2004 :
(2004) 7 SCC 528]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [
MANU/SC/0683/2009 : 2009:INSC:613 : (2009) 14
SCC 286]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
[ MANU/SC/0916/2010 : 2010:INSC:752 : (2010) 14
SCC 496]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [
MANU/SC/1208/2014 : 2014:INSC:841 : (2014) 16
SCC 508]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)
[ MANU/SC/1454/2017 : 2017:INSC:1111 : (2018) 12
SCC      129];    Mahipal    v.    Rajesh     Kumar     [
MANU/SC/1677/2019 : 2019:INSC:1325 : (2020) 2
SCC 118].

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted,
ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner.
However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
                                                    ACB-63-2025
                           -8-

always open to interference by the superior court. If
there are serious allegations against the Accused, even
if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an
order can be cancelled by the same Court that has
granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior
court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored
the relevant material available on 12-01-2026 (Page 5
of 7)record or not looked into the gravity of the offence
or the impact on the society resulting in such an order.
In P v. State of M.P. [MANU/SC/0587/2022 :
2022:INSC:514 : (2022) 15 SCC 211] decided by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by one of us
(Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations that
must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order
granting bail to an Accused Under Section 439(1) Code
of Criminal Procedure in the following words:
(SCC p. 224, para 24)

24 . As can be discerned from the above decisions, for
cancelling bail once granted, the court must consider
whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or
the conduct of the Accused post grant of bail
demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair
trial to permit him to retain his freedom by enjoying
the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State
of Haryana, MANU/SC/0547/1995 : 1994:INSC:548 :
(1995) 1 SCC 349]. To put it differently, in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be loathe to interfere
with an order passed by the court below granting bail
but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or
premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an
order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the
appellate court.

Considerations for setting aside bail orders

28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate
court for setting aside the bail order on an application
                                                            ACB-63-2025
                                   -9-

       being moved by the aggrieved party include any
       supervening circumstances that may have occurred
       after granting relief to the Accused, the conduct of the
       Accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the
       Accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial,
       any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses
       while on bail, any attempt on the part of the Accused
       to tamper with the evidence in any manner. We may
       add that this list is only illustrative and not exhaustive.
       However, the court must be cautious that at the stage
       of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be
       examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of
       the case that may cause prejudice to the Accused,
       ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail
       order should reveal the factors that have been
       considered by the Court for granting relief to the
       Accused.”


8.    In yet another case of Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan

2024 INSC 994, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that bail can

only be cancelled upon supervening circumstances or abuse of liberty,

not merely because of the gravity of the offence.



9.    Bearing above judicial precedent on cancellation of bail in

mind, in the considered opinion of this court, no exceptional ground

has been put forth except stating that respondent is main accused and

offence is serious. Several above referred citations are relied and there

is no dispute that the Hon’ble Apex Court had cancelled the bail in

those cases. On court query as to whether there is non compliance or
                                                         ACB-63-2025
                                  -10-

breach of any condition imposed by this Court while granting bail,

learned APP answered in negative. Moreover, it is brought to the

notice of this Court by learned counsel for respondent that charge is

already framed and matter is committed, but no trial calender is

reported to be drawn yet. Resultantly, no ground being made out for

cancellation of bail, following order is passed :




                                 ORDER

                      Application stands rejected.



                                            [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre