Judgment 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties finally. 2] By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order, dated 19.6.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat, below Exh. 24, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012. 3] The brief facts in nut shell, which gave rise to the present petition, are as mentioned below. Respondent no.2 Radhabai Keshav Ingole is the first informant, who has filed the complaint against the petitioners and co-accused on 12.9.2011. It is alleged therein that on 12.9.2011 at about 8.00 p.m. the informant along with her husband, namely Kishan had dinner and were sleeping in the court yard, situated in front of their house. At this juncture, the neighbour namely Baliram i.e. petitioner no.1 herein came there and informed that rain water which flows from the tin shed roof of the complainant’s house falls in his house and abused the complainant and her husband. It is alleged that in the mean time, Prakash i.e. son of petitioner no.1 herein arrived there armed with iron rod and inflicted blow of it on the head of complainant’s husband, namely Kishan on the frontal region and on both ears and also on the right hand and on the legs and thereby he was seriously injured and he also sustained fracture to his right hand. It is further alleged that the petitioners in furtherance of their common intention assaulted informant and her husband namely Kishan. However, one Kavita Bhuktar and other intervened and rescued the said quarrel. Thereafter, complaint was registered by respondent no.2 herein at Kurunda police station under C.R. No. 68 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 325, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the husband of the first informant expired, and therefore, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the afore said C.R. 4] Thereafter, the petitioners were arrested by the police, who were arrayed under the said C.R. The petitioners filed the bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Basmat, but same was rejected. Subsequently, the husband of the first informant expired, and therefore, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the afore said C.R. 4] Thereafter, the petitioners were arrested by the police, who were arrayed under the said C.R. The petitioners filed the bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Basmat, but same was rejected. Moreover, petitioner no.2 namely Prayagbai preferred an application for anticipatory bail, but same was also rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Basmat. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 Baliram and petitioner no.3 Parasram preferred Criminal Application No. 4481 of 2011 before this court, but application of petitioner no.3 Parasram was not pressed and it was dismissed on 28.11.2011; whereas the said application of petitioner no.1 Baliram was granted on 28.11.2011 and he was directed to be released on the terms and conditions imposed therein. Moreover, petitioner no.2 Prayagbai also preferred Criminal Application No. 4480 of 2011 before this court for grant of bail and same was also allowed on 8.11.2011 and she was released on bail on the terms and conditions imposed therein. Thereafter, petitioner no.3 Parasram preferred an application No. 432 of 2012 for grant of bail before this court and same was allowed and he was directed to be released on bail by order, dated 8.2.2012 on the terms and conditions imposed therein. 5] Thereafter, respondent no.2 herein preferred the application Exh.24 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012 on 5.4.2012 and thereby prayed to cancel the bail granted to petitioners herein and co-accused and alternatively requested that they be prevented from entering into Hingoli district. Petitioners herein filed their say at Exh. 31 and resisted the said application contending that the applicants therein have harassed respondent no.2 and gave threats to respondent no.2 to kill her and created terrorism in the vicinity after release on bail and also contending that police personnel have not taken any action against them in spite of lodging complaint against them. 6] The applicants also pointed out that the said application Exh.24 was not maintainable before the said court contending that bail was granted to the petitioners by this court, and therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat was not empowered to cancel the said bail. After considering the rival submissions, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat passed an order on the said application Exh. After considering the rival submissions, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat passed an order on the said application Exh. 24 on 19.6.2012 and partly allowed the said application and the prayer in respect of cancellation of bail of the petitioners herein was rejected, but the alternative prayer was granted partly and the petitioners herein were restrained from entering into Basmat Tehsil till the conclusion of the trial, excepting to attend the dates of the said case and hearing of the trial was expedited. 7] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present petition and prayed for quashment thereof. 8] Learned A.P.P. opposed the present petition and pointed out that the application Exh.24 was filed by respondent no.2 herein in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012 and not by the State and submitted that the impugned order is illegal, since bail was granted to the petitioners by this court. 9] Learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the present petition vehemently and submitted that the petitioners herein have given threats to respondent no.2 to kill her and police personnel have not taken any action against them in spite of filing complaint in that respect against them. He further submitted that the petitioners herein have created terrorism in the vicinity and it has become impossible for respondent no.2 to move out of the home. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent no.2 resisted the present petition and urged that it be dismissed. 10] I have perused the contents of the present petition and the annexures thereof and the order passed by this court in Criminal Application No. 4481 of 2011 on 28.11.2011; and the order passed in Criminal Application No. 4480 of 2011 on 8.11.2011; and the order passed in Criminal Application No. 432 of 2012 on 8.2.2012; and the application Exh.21 preferred by respondent no.2 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012; and the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court thereon on 19.6.2012; and heard the learned respective counsel for the parties. 11] At the out set, admittedly petitioner no.1 Baliram was granted bail by this court in Criminal Application No. 4481 of 2011 by order dated 28.11.2011 and he was directed to report the concerned police station on every 2nd and 4th Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till recording of evidence of material witnesses on behalf of prosecution is over. Moreover, petitioner no.2 Prayagbai was granted anticipatory bail by this court in Criminal Application No. 4480 of 2011 on 8.11.2011 and she was directed to report to the concerned police station firstly on 18.11.2011 between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. for interrogation before the Investigating Officer and thereafter as and when required. So also petitioner no.3 Parasram was granted bail by this court in Criminal Application No. 432 of 2012 on 8.2.2012 and he was directed to attend the concerned police station on every 1st and 3rd Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till recording of evidence of material witnesses of the prosecution is over. 12] On the afore said background, respondent no. 2 preferred application Exh.24 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012 on 5.4.2012 requesting to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners and alternatively prayed that they be restrained from entering into Hingoli district. It was opposed by the applicants pointing out that bail was granted to the petitioners by this court, and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no authority to cancel the same. Thereafter, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat passed the impugned order on 19.6.2012 and rejected the prayer of cancellation of bail, but granted alternative prayer and restrained the petitioners from entering into Basmat Tehsil till the conclusion of trial, excepting to attend the dates of the matter. 13] On perusal of the impugned order, dated 19.6.2012 passed on Exh.24 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat, it appears that learned Judge has dealt with the contentions raised by the parties aptly and also prayer in respect of cancellation of bail of the applicants, and observed that since the bail was granted to the petitioners by this court, it cannot be cancelled by the said court, and hence, rejected the said prayer rightly. 14] However, since learned Judge was seized of the trial, it was imperative on his part to consider the aspect of safety of the informant and the prosecution witnesses, and therefore, he rightly observed that the trial must be conducted in proper manner and without any fear to the prosecution witnesses and as the informant and the prosecution witnesses are the residents of village Pardi, Taluka Basmat and accused also belongs to the same village and since there was possibility that accused may pressurize the informant and prosecution witnesses, he thought it fit and proper to restrain the petitioners from entering into Basmat Tehsil till the conclusion of trial and issued the directions accordingly. While issuing the said directions, he permitted the petitioners to enter into Basmat Tehsil to attend the dates of the said case by granting alternative prayer. I do not find any fault/error therein. 15] However, perhaps it appears that the condition prescribed in Criminal Application No. 4481 of 2011 by order dated 28.11.2011 upon petitioner no.1 Baliram to report to the concerned police station on every 2nd and 4th Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till recording of evidence of material witnesses on behalf of the prosecution is over; and the condition prescribed upon petitioner no.3 Parasram in Criminal Application No. 432 of 2012 by order dated 8.2.2012 that he shall report the concerned police station on every 1st and 3rd Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. till recording of evidence of material witnesses of the prosecution is over, have been escaped from the mind of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat while passing the said order, and therefore, petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are required to be permitted to enter into Basmat Taluka for the compliance of the said directions issued by this court, and the said conditions are required to be modified to that extent. At this juncture, I am told that the concerned police station is at Kurunda in Basmat Taluka. 1 and 3 are required to be permitted to enter into Basmat Taluka for the compliance of the said directions issued by this court, and the said conditions are required to be modified to that extent. At this juncture, I am told that the concerned police station is at Kurunda in Basmat Taluka. 16] In the result, present petition is allowed partly and clause (3) of the impugned order, dated 19.6.2012 passed below Exh.24 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat is modified and petitioner no.1 Baliram and petitioner no.3 Parasram are also permitted to enter into Basmat Tehsil to comply with the directions issued by this court in Criminal Application No. 4481 of 2011 on 28.11.2011 and in Criminal Application NO. 432 of 2012 on 8.2.2012, respectively and rest of the conditions of the said impugned order shall remain same and present petition is disposed of accordingly. 17] Rule is made absolute accordingly in the afore said terms.