1 Cri-A-5326-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5326 OF 2010 Mrs. Neha Vishal Bajla ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.M.Saraogi,Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. G.P.Mulekar, APP, for the respondent No.1 - state. Mr. Vivek Kantawala i/b. Vivek Kantawala & Co.,Advocates, for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 1st February, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is wife of the respondent No.2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are father and mother of respondent No.2. The applicant was married to respondent No.2 on 2.12.2009. On 2.6.2010, she lodged a report on the basis of which Crime No.89/2010 under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC was registered by Navghar Police Station. In that report, in all three instances were quoted. About the first instance, on 24.3.2010 a non-cognizable case No. 249/2010 under Section 323, 504, IPC was registered. About the second instance, non- 2 Cri-A-5326-10.sxw cognizable case No.444/2010 under Section 323, 504, IPC was registered and in the last report, it was contended that she was being regularly threatened to bring money when she was staying with her husband. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order on 8.7.2010 granting anticipatory bail to the respondents with the direction that they shall attend the police station for six days. The present application for cancellation of that order was filed on 26.11.2010. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that her valuable articles are lying with the respondents and the said articles are not recovered. Firstly in the FIR, there is no mention of such articles. Two days after that the applicant appears to have given a letter to the Senior Inspector of Police,Navghar Police Station about her valuable articles. For recovery of articles, remedies are available under the law. For that purpose, it is not necessary to cancel the anticipatory bail. There is no explanation for delay of more than four months in filing the application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. Therefore, no case is made out for cancellation of anticipatory bail. Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)