IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1836 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner Versus Savitri @ Sumitra Narayan Gauda & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P. for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DECEMBER 5, 2005. DECEMBER 5, 2005. DECEMBER 5, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. I see no reason to interfere in the fact situation of the present case. Learned A.P.P. fairly accepts that the order which has been set-aside by the Sessions Court was an interim arrangement which was required to be observed by the parties during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. : 2 : 2. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted. However, it is observed that the main proceedings be decided by the authorities concerned on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order. Disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.