{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2097 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Ram Pandhari Biradar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs. V.A.Shinde, APP for applicant State Mr.A.A.Murge, h/f Mr.A.S.Bayas, Advocate for respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant State has prayed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the applicants on 29th March 2010 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist-Latur in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.60/2010. 2. Heard learned APP for applicant State followed by learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order and record, which was produced before the learned trial court. {2} 3. At Exhibit-A there is application and at Exhibit-B it is a report submitted by the concerned investigating Officer to oppose the application before the trial court. On perusal of compliant in connection with CR No.21/2010 registered with Deoni police station, it appears that the complainant and her sister in law are the only witnesses to the said incident. Though the entire contents of the complaint are accepted as a gospel truth, yet they do not whisper of presence of the present respondents at the spot at the relevant time nor they have attributed any role to the respondents in the said incident. Hence, a question arose as to when the respondents were not present at the spot at the relevant time and therefore there is no question of involvement of the respondents in the alleged offence. The trial court has observed that though the complaint is accepted as it is, yet it is evident that the same is witnesses by a sole eye witness, who does not whisper about the presence and participation of the respondents and on that ground the application is allowed by the trial court. Neither the learned APP has pointed out any illegality in the impugned order nor this Court, after perusing the order, found any illegality in the same. Therefore, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2097-10 {3} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2776 OF 2010 Ramrao Hanmantrao Biradar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.A.A.Murge, h/f Mr.A.S.Bayas, Advocate for applicant Mrs. V.A.Shinde, APP for Respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd July 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to the respondent. Learned APP accepts the notice and seeks time. S.O. to 29.07.2010. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2097-10