Bombay High Court
XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The bail was not cancelled as there was no deliberate or wilful breach of the bail condition.
Summary
The victim filed an interim application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused on the condition that the accused not act as a counsellor until further order of the trial court. The accused’s counsel argued that the accused had provided counselling via video conferencing, alleging a breach of the bail condition. The respondent‑accused contended that the condition was limited to personal sessions related to the alleged offence and did not prohibit all professional activity, and that no intentional violation occurred. The court held that the condition was not a blanket prohibition and that there was no clear, wilful breach warranting bail cancellation. Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the accused’s conduct of providing counselling via video conferencing constitutes a breach of the bail condition prohibiting him from acting as a counsellor.
- Whether such alleged breach justifies cancellation of the bail granted to the accused.
Subjects
- bail
- bail condition
- cancellation of bail
- wilful breach
- criminal procedure
Judgment
36.IA-745-2025.DOC
Sneha Bang
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 745 OF 2025
Digitally signed
XYZ …Applicant
by SNEHA
SNEHA
JAYPRAKASH
BANG
Versus
JAYPRAKASH
Date:
BANG 2026.05.07
11:20:51
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
+0530
WITH
CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 107 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2391 OF 2023
Sanjoy Shivdas Mukherjee …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. M. K. Guha, for the Applicant.
Mr. Himanshu Patil a/w. Pooja Sursure, for Respondent No.2 in
IA/107/2024 & for Applicant in IA/745/2025.
Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. D. P. Mane, PSI, Kasturba Marg Police Station is present.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 30th APRIL, 2026
PC:-
1. This application is moved by the victim for cancellation of
bail granted by this Court by order dated 6th October, 2023,
whereby the following condition was imposed against the
Applicant, which reads thus:
“The Applicant shall not act as a Counsellor till further
order of the Trial Court.”
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that, without
seeking any order from the Trial Court, the Applicant has
Page 1 of 2
36.IA-745-2025.DOC
entertained clients and gave advice/counselling through video
conferencing. According to him, this amounts to breach of the
condition of bail and the bail deserves to be cancelled.
3. This application is opposed by the Counsel for the
Respondent–Original Accused, contending that no breach, much
less an intentional violation of any order, has been committed by
the Accused. It is his submission that the said condition was
imposed in the context of the offence charged against the Accused
and it was expected that no personal sessions are taken by the
respondent herein.
4. This Court finds substance in the contention of the Counsel
for the Accused that, in all probability, in the context of the
allegations against the Applicant, he was prevented from acting as
a counsellor till further orders of the Trial Court. Firstly, it is not a
blanket order whereby he is completely barred from conducting his
profession, is open for the Accused to seek appropriate orders from
the Trial Court. In light of this fact, it cannot be said that any
deliberate or wilful breach of the condition and therefore any case
being made out so as to cancel the bail. Needless to say, the Courts
are required to be very slow in cancellation of bail unless malafides
are shown or there is a clear and wilful breach of the conditions of
bail. In the facts of the case this Court finds no substance in the
Application.
5. Criminal Interim Application No. 745 of 2025 stands
dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…