Xyz-Informant vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 204 Bom

                                   1                           971-ACB.8-22.odt


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO.8 OF 2022

             XYZ - Informant                           ... Applicant.

                    Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra,
             through P.S.O., Jalna Taluka
             Police Station, Jalna, Dist. Jalna,

     2.      Gopal Krushnarao Waghmare,
             Age 36 years, Occu. Private Service,

     3.      Santosh Prakashrao Dhage,
             Age 41 years, Occu. Business.

     4.      Meera Krushna Waghmare,
             Age 65 years, Occu. Household,

     5.      Manisha Santosh Dhage,
             Age 36 years, Occu. Household,

             R.Nos.2 to 5 R/o. Prashanti Nagar,
             Shindakhed Raja Road, Jalna.

     6.      Rajeshree Nirmal Agrawal,
             Age 53 years, Occu. Medical Practitioner,
             R/o Jalna, District Jalna.           ... Respondents.

                                    ...
            Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pathan Sartaj Khan H.
                APP for Respondent-State : Mr. K. S. Patil.
           Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Mr. Kakde S. B.
          Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. Salunke Pradeep B.
                                    ...

                                 CORAM :      S. G. MEHARE, J.

                                 DATE :       06.01.2023





                                   2                       971-ACB.8-22.odt


     ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

by consent of the parties.

2. A detail order has been passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge-2, Jalna regarding granting the bail. The

applicant is the wife of respondent No.2. The order granting

bail does not reveal that the learned Sessions Judge did not

consider the material placed before it. On the contrary, it seems

a detail order discussing each type of allegation. The

inordinate delay of two years in lodging the FIR has also been

correctly condoned. The order granting bail is neither

arbitrary nor perverse. The applicant has no material to show

that there were overwhelming circumstances to cancel the bail.

None of the legal ground for cancellation of bail is in favour of

the applicant. However, it seems that the husband and wife

have strained relations. There were no complaints of the

breach of the conditions of the bail. For the above reasons, the

application stands dismissed.

3. Rule made discharged. No order as to costs.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) ...

vmk/-