{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Shantabai Babu @ Baburao Suryawanshi &Ors RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for Applicant State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 1st July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant State has moved this Court for quashing of the order dated 28.07.2009 passed below Exhibit-1 in Criminal M.A. No.120/2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir. By the said order anticipatory bail was granted in favour of present respondents No.1 to 3, who are ladies of the age 45 years, 85 years and 65 years respectively. 2. Heard learned APP for applicant State. Perused the impugned order and the application dated 29.07.2009 received by the Superintendent of Police, Latur, copies of which are also forwarded to the Chief Minister and Home Minister of the State of {2} Maharashtra. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has demonstrated the acts and involvement, if any, of the present respondents No.1 to 3 after perusing the papers of investigation placed before the concerned Judge. The said offence is registered against total 5 persons out of which 3 are ladies and two are gents. The two male members were before this Court in criminal application No.4244/2009, which was withdrawn and criminal application No.4239/2009 was rejected, vide order dated 16.12.2009. The learned trial court has discussed the allegations against the present respondents. Considering the fact that respondents No.2 and 3 are ladies of advanced age, and respondent No.1 is taking their care coupled with the fact that the impugned order is passed on 28th July 2009 and immediately on 29th July 2009 complaint was lodged by taking advantage of the fact that the present respondents were released on bail it appears that the complainant is instrumental in moving the present application for cancellation of bail that too when the complaint is totally silent as to who gave threats, at which place and in what manner, and hence in the present application even notice to respondents is also not necessary. Consequently, the application which is sans merits stands dismissed summarily. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln379-0