1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2171 OF 2009 Shashi Lokesh Hadale .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2187 OF 2009 Shashi Lokesh Hadale .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b Khandeparkar & Associates for the applicants. Mrs.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for the State. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 3RD JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By these applications, the applicant is seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2 – Lokesh Hadale in criminal application No.2171 of 2009 and Smt.Munni Ramesh Hadale and Ms.Seema Ramesh Hadale in criminal application No.2187 of 2009. Respondent No.2 in criminal application No.2171 of 2009 is the husband of the applicant while respondent nos.2 and 3 in 2 criminal application No.2187 of 2009 are her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The applicant and Lokesh Hadale got married on 20th April, 2006. The applicant left the matrimonial home on 5.7.2008. An FIR making allegations against all the respondent- accused has been lodged by the applicant on 5.2.2009. She also had made written complaint to the police in July, 2008. The only ground on which the applicant is seeking cancellation of bail, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, is that Stridhan of the applicant has not be recovered from the respondent-accused by the police and hence their custoday is necessary. The respondent-accused have denied to have retained Stridhan of the applicant and according to them it was taken away by the applicant when she left home on 5th July, 2008. Keeping that in view and having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to grant this application for cancellation of bail. In my opinion, no case for cancellation of bail is made out by the applicant, hence the applications are rejected. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)