DIGAMBAR S/O. MADHAVRAO PANCHALversusNAVALCHAND S/O. MADANLAL JAIN AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:41024


                                                                              14.19revn
                                                   (1)

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2019

                                   Digambar s/o Madhavrao Panchal
                                               VERSUS
                                   1. Navalchand s/o Madanlal Jain
                                      2. The State of Maharashtra
                                                  …..
                 Mr Adil A. Shaikh, Advocate h/f Mr R. V. Gore, Advocate for
                 Respondent No.1
                 Ms B. B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent No.2/State
                                                 …..
                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                             DATE : 29th AUGUST 2026
                 P. C. :


                 1.          By way of this revision application under Section 397

                 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant

                 has approached this Court, challenging the impugned order dated

                 02/11/2018, passed by the learned 6 th Additional Sessions Judge,

                 Nanded in Criminal Appeal No.57/2018. Vide the said impugned

                 order, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal preferred by

                 respondent No.1/accused, thereby quashing and setting aside the order

                 dated 05/10/2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

                 Class, Nanded in Crime No.266/2017.



                 2.          The brief facts of the case are as under:
                                                               14.19revn
                                   (2)

              (a)   The applicant is the complainant who had filed

complaint against the respondent No.1 and his wife, alleging therein

that accused had taken an amount of Rs.50.50 lakh from 14 persons

including him, under the false pretext of providing service to them in

MSEDCL. Therefore, Crime No.266/2017 came to be registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with the Bhagyanagar Police

Station.

              (b)   Respondent No.1/accused filed bail application

which came to be allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Nanded on 29/11/2017. The learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class while granting the bail to respondent No.1 imposed certain

conditions.

              (c)   Thereafter, applicant preferred an application under

Section 446(A) of the Code of Criminal procedure for cancellation of

bail of respondent No.1 on account of disobeying the order dated

29/11/2017, and the said application came to be allowed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded vide order dated 05/10/2018.

              (d)   Being   aggrieved    by   the   said   order   dated

05/10/2018, accused/respondent No.1 preferred appeal bearing

Criminal Appeal No.57/2018 before the learned Sessions Court. The
                                                                14.19revn
                                   (3)

learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide the impugned

order dated 02/11/2018, allowed the said appeal and set aside the order

dated 05/10/2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Nanded, thereby confirming the bail and directing respondent

No.1/accused to strictly follow the terms and conditions of bail.


             Being aggrieved by the said order dated 02/11/2018

passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, the

revision applicant has preferred this revision application.


3.           None is present for the applicant. Heard learned Advocate

Mr Gore for respondent No.1 and the learned APP Ms Gunjal for

respondent No.2/State.

4.           According to the applicant, the respondent/accused, after

granting the bail to him, has not followed the terms and conditions

imposed upon him by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Applicant had

sought information under the Right to Information Act as regards as to

whether the respondent/accused is attending the police station in

pursuance of the order granting bail to him. It was informed him that

respondent/accused is not attending the police station regularly.

Therefore, according to the applicant, respondent/accused has

committed breach of terms and condition imposed upon him, and
                                                                14.19revn
                                   (4)

therefore, he preferred this revision application seeking cancellation of

bail. According to applicant, by passing the impugned judgment and

order of the learned Sessions Court has committed error in considering

the provisions of law.      According to him, the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class has imposed the conditions while granting bail

and those have not been obeyed by respondent No.1/accused, and

therefore, impugned judgment and order is perverse.


5.          Mr Gore, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/accused

supports the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions

Judge and prays for dismissal of the present revision application.


6.          After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned

APP and learned Advocate for respondent No.2, I have gone through

the record available with the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Nanded, vide order dated 05/10/2018 observed that

respondent/accused has committed breach of condition of bail and

never appeared at the Police Station, Bhagyanagar. He has also not

followed the conditions imposed on him, and therefore, bail of the

accused/respondent came to be rejected. The surety of the accused is

also discharged and non-bailable warrant was issued against him.
                                                               14.19revn
                                  (5)

7.          Learned Additional      Sessions    Judge,   Nanded    vide

impugned order dated 02/11/2018, while confirming the bail, observed

that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in pursuance of the

powers under Sections 446 and 446A of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, cancelled the bail of the respondent/accused. It was further

observed that, in view of the Section 446 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, when the Court records reasons about non-fulfillment of

conditions of bond, it may call upon the accused or surety, however,

the learned Judicial Magistrate did not issue show-cause notice to the

accused, as to why his bail bond should not be forfeited. Moreover, it

was pointed out that the accused was in jail and he was not knowing

about the conditions imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class. Consequently, since he was detained in jail, he had no means of

knowing or complying with the said conditions. It was also observed

that there was a mistake on the part of the Advocate for the accused,

who could not point out to the learned Magistrate that the accused is in

jail. However, for the fault on the part of the Advocate, the client

should not suffer, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge observed

that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was

not under Section 437(5) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail, but it

was ordered under Sections 446 and 446 A of Cr.P.C. Thus, the
                                                                 14.19revn
                                   (6)

learned Sessions Judge observed that learned JMFC has not followed

the proper procedure as laid down under Section 446 of Cr.P.C., and

therefore, allowed the appeal and the order passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, thereby forfeiting the surety came to be

quashed and set aside and the respondent/accused was further directed

to strictly follow the terms and conditions of bail.


8.           The impugned judgment and order was passed by the

learned Sessions Judge in the year 2018 and the instant Criminal

Revision Application is filed in the year 2019. This Court had issued

notices to respondents on 24/09/2019. However, thereafter, this matter

was never listed or circulated before this court.


9.           In absence of anything to point out about the progress of

the trial before the lower Court, it is not useful to consider the instant

criminal revision application, as vide impugned judgment and order,

the learned Sessions Judge simply continued the bail order of the

respondent/accused, thereby cancelling the order of learned JMFC.


10.          As there is no progress pointed out to this Court as

regards the trial before the lower Court, this matter directing the

respondent/accused to follow the conditions of the bail order, requires

no interference.
                                                                14.19revn
                                  (7)

11.         In view of above, this Court finds that there is no illegality

or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge. Looking to the scope of exercising revisional jurisdiction under

Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not inclined to

entertain the instant criminal revision application, and hence, the same

is dismissed.



                                    [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk