Bharat S/O Madanrao Solanke v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

crap1539.15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1539 OF 2015 [Bharat s/o Madanrao Solanke vs The State of Maharashtra and ors.] _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court's or Judge's orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.A.Gaikwad, advocate for applicant Shri A.S.Shinde, advocate for respondent/State .....

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.

DATED : 13 th July, 2015 PER COURT :- 1] This is an application for cancellation of bail, by which the learned trial court has granted regular bail in favour of non-applicant no.3 Usha w/o Deeliprao Solanke. 2] Heard Shri S.A.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicant-first informant. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalna granted application filed on behalf of non-applicant no.3 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nonapplicant no.3 was arrested in connection with Crime No. 20 of 2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Ashti police Station, District Jalna.

3] The first information report is lodged by Bharat against 8 persons. The role attributed to non-applicant no.3 is that she has instigated the other co-accused persons. It appears from the first information report that, all other accused persons arrived at the spot of the occurrence with lathis in their hands, however, learned counsel for the applicant wants to state, on the statement of some of the witnesses, that Ushabai after the occurrence has provided sticks to some of

crap1539.15 the accused persons. Non-applicant no.3 was arrested on 24.2.2015. Thus for about 15 days non-applicant no.3 was in jail.

4] Looking to the nature of accusation made against nonapplicant no. 3 in the first information report and looking to the fact that she is lady, I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned trial court in her favour. 5] Hence, application is rejected.

(V.M.DESHPANDE, J.) dbm/crap1539.15