JUDGMENT 1. - By order dated 10,8.98, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City had granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 6 who are all ladies, in FIR No. 387/98 under section 147, 448, 140, 323, 303, 307, 452, 427 and 336 IPC. One Nangia had been caused a number of injuries with sharp as well as blunt weapons, 16 persons were arrested in connection with his murder and they are reported to be in jail. The present applicants were granted bail on the ground that they were all ladies either of advanced ages or were minors, and that the accusation made against them was that they had pelted stones at the prosecution witnesses. 2. Cancellation of bail granted under section 438 Cr.P.C. to the respondents, has been prayed mainly on the ground that they were also members of the unlawful assembly and that the only fact that had weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail to them, was their being women. With the help of decisions of the Supreme Court in Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another 1988 Cr.LR (SC) 177 and Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1985 SC 969 , it was submitted that looking to the gravity of the offence bail should not have been granted to the respondents. 3. As against the above, learned counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that it was after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion in the matter of grant of bail to the respondents and since there were no facts regarding abuse of such concession by them or tempering with the prosecution witnesses bail should not be cancelled. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Smt. Vijay Laxmi v. State of Rajasthan 1988 RCC 43 and Kishori Lal Bapat v. State of Rajasthan and Others 1988 RCC 197 . 4. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.It was not asserted before me that after the grant of bail to the accused respondents, they had in any manner abused the concession granted to them. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.It was not asserted before me that after the grant of bail to the accused respondents, they had in any manner abused the concession granted to them. They are not alleged to have tried to intimidate or threat on the prosecution witnesses or in any way, to interfered with the course of investigation or trial. The accusation against them was that they had pelted stones when the male members were busy in assaulting the deceased. As many as 16 members stand detained in connection with this case. Looking to all these facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down in the cases relied upon by the parties, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for cancellation of bail. The application is rejected. *******