JUDGMENT - S.P. KULKARNI, J.:---This application for bail is preferred on behalf of the appellant No. 2 who is herself the mother of the deceased. It so happened that out of the three sons, the deceased who was one of them had returned to the house and then some sorrowful events seems to have taken place in which there was some damages to the household articles, some heat was created because of alterations between the appellants, juvenile offender and other members on one side and the deceased on the other in which the deceased was said to have gone outside the house when he was assaulted and he succumbed to fatal head injury. 2.So far as the role of the present applicant No. 2 Mangala which has been described is that she made some utterance pursuant to which the rest of the culprits assaulted the deceased and injured him and that utterance was that deceased should be beaten and his waist should be broken. 3.Shri Daga appearing for the appellants contended that it was after all the utterance of the mother. He draws distinction between mother making utterance of this type on several occasions, but may not mean whereas stranger's utterance is more meaningful in comparison. According to him the evidence requires reconsideration and the debatable aspect of the matter by this to be the real meaning of utterance instead of the son should be killed and thus she shared the intention of the rest of the brothers or the culprits who were responsible for the actual assault and the deceased succumbing to the head injury. 4.Because of this debatable aspect throwing light on the basic question of intention involved in reconsidering the subject of conviction, when there was no overt act attributed to the appellant No. 2 Mangala, he states that the Court should exercise discretion in granting the bail rather than refusing the bail to her. She is also a woman. 5.On behalf of the State Shri, Dhote points out the observation recorded by the trial Court in para 20 that the act attributable to the appellant No. 2 Mangala was regarding her making the utterance as referred to above, besides that there does not seem to be any other overt act done by her and therefore we feel satisfied with the request for grant of bail. We are therefore, inclined to accept the request and to order that the appellant No. 2 Mangala wife of Namderorao Raut, who was already on bail shall be released on bail after conviction in Sessions Case No. 91/99 decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli. She shall furnish bail bond with solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. As a condition of bail, she shall attend the Chamorshi Police Station on every first day of the month any time between 12.00 0'clock to 2.00 p.m. The sentence of imprisonment, upon execution of the bail bonds, shall stand suspended. Application allowed. -----