1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4830 OF 2011 Yamunabai w/o Sadashiv Kandekar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr P.F.Patni, Advocate for applicant Mr V.H.Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th December 2011 PER COURT Heard. 2. By order dated 20.4.2011 in Criminal Application No.1486/2011 the request to release the applicant on bail was turned down with an indication to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to dispose of the matter by end of January 2012. 3. The grievance of the accused/applicant is, in spite of charge being framed the matter has not reached to any stage of evidence for want of C.A. report or production of muddemal property. To stress his point, the learned Counsel has invited attention to Exh.28 in Sessions Case No. 16/2011 dated 7.10.2011 where the learned A.P.P.at Ahmednagar sought time to produce the C.A. report and muddemal property. 2 4. As against this, learned A.P.P. Submits that he has instructions that the muddemal property is already deposited in the Court and so far as C.A. report, he is unaware, whether received or not. However, he ensures that he will take care that the report is received within couple of days. 5. Considering the above situation and revising the order dated 20.4.2011 and order at Exh.28 dated 7.10.2011, I do not see any change of circumstances to release the accused/applicant on bail, even if she is a female. 6. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the sessions case in a time bound schedule, as was indicated earlier. If the accused/applicant drags the proceedings, the learned Judge shall take a note thereof. Liberty, if the proceedings are not initiated by the end of January 2012. Application rejected. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/4830.11criappln)