1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7166 OF 2005 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.985 OF 2005 Sushma Suresh Nigudkar & Anr. ..Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.M.P.Dalvi, for applicants. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : DECEMBER 1, 2005. DATE : DECEMBER 1, 2005. DATE : DECEMBER 1, 2005. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. I have already admitted appeal against conviction today by separate order. 3. In so far as applicant No.1 is concerned, she was sister in law of the deceased. She was granted bail during the pendency of the trial. There is nothing on record to indicate that she has misused the same. So far as the applicant No.1 is concerned, reasonable case has been made out for which reason in the interest of justice, I am inclined to release the said applicant on bail on same condition as obtained 2 during the pendency of the trial. 4. In so far as applicant No.2 is concerned, I am not inclined to grant bail. At this stage, counsel for the said applicant submits that the Court may not record reasons and that the applicant No.2 be given liberty to apply for bail afresh after six months and may be permitted to withdraw the present application. That request is accepted. 5. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with direction to release the applicant No.1 on bail on same conditions as obtained during the pendency of the trial on executing fresh bond. 6. Application is dismissed as withdrawn, in so far as Applicant No.2 is concerned with liberty as prayed. 7. Ordered accordingly.