JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard all the sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The first application is filed by Dr. Smt. Mundhe in R.C.C. No. 163/2012, which is filed by Appropriate Authority for offences punishable under sections 3-A, 4(5), 5, 6, 8 and 19 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCPNDT Act' for short) and also under the Rules framed under this Special Act. The second application is filed by the State against Dr. Smt. Mundhe, for cancellation of bail, granted to her by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed in C.R. No. 42/2012 registered in Parli City Police Station. The chargesheet is filed in this crime for offences punishable under section 304, 312, 314, 315, 316 and 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and also for offences punishable under section 3, 4-B and 6 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MTP Act' for short). The chargesheet is also filed for the offences punishable under the provisions of PCPNDT Act. The third application is filed for bail by Dr. Shri. Sudam Mundhe in C.R. No. 42/2012 registered in Parli City Police Station for aforesaid offences, in which chargesheet is filed against this applicant also. 3. Dr. Smt. Mundhe and Dr. Shri. Mundhe were together practicing in their Mundhe Hospital from Parli as doctors. R.C.C. No. 163/2012 and C.R. No. 42/2012 have arisen out of the same incident. In both the matters Smt. Mundhe and Shri. Mundhe are accused and so, all the three applications are being decided together. 4. Dr. Shri. Mundhe is General Orthopedic Surgeon. Dr. Smt. Mundhe is Obst. and Gynecologist. At the relevant time, they owned and run Mundhe Hospital in Parli. In R.C.C. No. 302/2010, which was filed under the provisions of PCPNDT Act prior to the incident in question, the sonography machine of this hospital was seized by Appropriate Authority and they were prevented from using pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic techniques. The permission given to this hospital for termination of pregnancy was also cancelled by Appropriate Authority by order dated 6.9.2011. One more case of illegal termination of pregnancy, abortion was filed against them in the past. 5. On 17.5.2012 one Smt. Vijaymala Patekar, a married woman, was brought to this hospital by her husband, accused No. 3 from C.R. No. 42/2012. One more case of illegal termination of pregnancy, abortion was filed against them in the past. 5. On 17.5.2012 one Smt. Vijaymala Patekar, a married woman, was brought to this hospital by her husband, accused No. 3 from C.R. No. 42/2012. She was having four daughters and she was again pregnant. This couple wanted to determine sex of the foetus. After clinical examination of this lady, Dr. Shri. Mundhe referred this lady to Padmawati Hospital from Jalgaon of Dr. Kolhe for sex determination. Dr. Kolhe is also made an accused in C.R. No. 42/2012. In Mundhe Hospital, there was arrangement for taking such patients from Parli to Jalgaon and then brining them back to Mundhe Hospital for abortion. Case Nos. 473/2011 and 505/2011 were already filed against Dr. Shri. Kolhe in Jalgaon by the Appropriate Authority under PCPNDT Act. His sonography machine was seized. He was also prevented from using such diagnostic techniques. In spite of these circumstances, Dr. Kolhe was using one sonography machine and in the present case, he determined the sex of foetus of Vijaymala. It was female foetus and it's age was around 18 to 20 weeks. 6. When Smt. Vijaymala was brought back to Mundhe Hospital after sex determination, medicines were given and operation was performed for abortion on 18.5.2011. The foetus was destroyed by burning it in the field of Dr. Shri. Mundhe by his employees. Smt. Vijaymala died due to this operation on 18.5.2011 itself. Dr. Shri. Mundhe informed to Parli City Police that Vijaymala had come to the hospital as she had bleeding (PV) and she died in his hospital. Neither in the hospital of Dr. Kolhe, nor in the hospital of Shri. Mundhe, complete and correct record in respect of Smt. Vijaymala was created. Dr. Mundhe informed to police that the pieces of foetus were thrown by him in drainage system. After receipt of this report, one Police Inspector of Parli Police Station gave report to the police station and on the basis of this report, the crime was initially registered for offences punishable under section 304-A and 201 of I.P.C. vide C.R. No. 42/2012. The offences punishable under the provisions of MTP Act and PCPNDT Act were also mentioned in the report. There are allegations made against this Police Officer that he joined hands with Dr. Mundhe. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences. The offences punishable under the provisions of MTP Act and PCPNDT Act were also mentioned in the report. There are allegations made against this Police Officer that he joined hands with Dr. Mundhe. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences. 7. On 13.6.2012 the Appropriate Authority under PCPNDT Act filed complaint, R.C.C. No. 163/2012, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli. 8. C.R. No. 42/2012 was registered on 18.5.2012 and this couple came to be arrested on 19.5.2012. On the same day, J.M.F.C. granted bail to them as the crime was initially registered for offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. On 16.7.2012 another Police Officer gave report to J.M.F.C. and requested for permission to add section 304 of I.P.C. and other offences also. The permission came to be granted. This couple then came to be arrested for commission of the newly added offences. In Criminal Application No. 425/2012, Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to Smt. Mundhe on 24.9.2012. Initially the bail was refused to Smt. Mundhe by the same Presiding Officer by order dated 23.8.2012. The subsequent application came to be filed after filing of the chargesheet and only on the ground of filing chargesheet, the bail came to be granted to Dr. Smt. Mundhe. The Sessions Court has, however, refused bail to Dr. Shri. Mundhe. 9. In private complaint, R.C.C., No. 163/2012 process was issued by J.M.F.C. This couple appeared before J.M.F.C. J.M.F.C. refused bail to both these accused. Criminal Application No. 145/2013 was filed in Sessions Court by both the accused. Their application came to be rejected on 12.6.2013. Thus, in R.C.C. No. 163/2012 Dr. Smt. Mundhe has been behind bars since 3.4.2013. In C.R. No. 42/2012, Dr. Shri. Mundhe has been behind bars since 13.6.2012. Bail is refused to him up to Supreme Court in other case like R.C.C. No. 302/2010. 10. For both the accused, submission was made that as both the cases have arisen out of the same incident, in view of the provisions of section 210 of Cr.P.C., the private complaint bearing R.C.C. No. 163/2012 will merge in to police case filed in C.R. No. 42/2012. The provision of section 28 of PCPNDT Act gives special procedure for taking cognizance of offences committed under this special enactment. Cognizance can be taken on the complaint filed by Appropriate Authority created under the Act. The provision of section 28 of PCPNDT Act gives special procedure for taking cognizance of offences committed under this special enactment. Cognizance can be taken on the complaint filed by Appropriate Authority created under the Act. Other person can file complaint only after confirming that the Appropriate Authority is not taking action. A notice in that regard of fixed time is required to be given by such interested person. Though this procedure is there, it can be said that once cognizance is taken by Magistrate of the offences punishable under PCPNDT Act, the proceeding receives treatment, which is for the case filed on a private complaint. Thus, the other provisions including section 210 of Cr.P.C. would apply to such private complaint. In view of this position of law, the material collected in both the cases need to be considered in the present matter. 11. The submissions made in this proceeding show that approval given to Mundhe Hospital under MTP Act was cancelled prior to the incident in question. Similarly, the permission given for using diagnostic techniques, ultra sonography machine was also cancelled prior to the incident in question. C.R. No. 88/2011 was registered in Parli Police Station for offences punishable under sections 318 and 34 of I.P.C. against this couple in the past. R.C.C. No. 302/2010 was filed under the provisions of sections 23, 25, 26 and 29 of PCPNDT Act against this couple by Appropriate Authority. These circumstances need to be kept in mind while considering the material collected against the applicants. The provision of section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code lays down that some conditions mentioned in this section must be imposed by the Court while granting bail. One of the condition is that the accused shall not commit similar offence after getting released on bail. So the conditions mentioned in section 437 of Cr.P.C. also need to be kept in mind while deciding the present matter. 12. The fact that Smt. Vijaymala died in Mundhe Hospital is not disputed. It is Dr. Shri. Mundhe, who reported to police about her death. The papers of investigation show that Dr. Mundhe used to cause abortions in this hospital and his employees used to destroy foetus by burning the same in the field of Dr. Shri. Mundhe. The employees of Dr. Shri. Mundhe have given such statements. It is Dr. Shri. Mundhe, who reported to police about her death. The papers of investigation show that Dr. Mundhe used to cause abortions in this hospital and his employees used to destroy foetus by burning the same in the field of Dr. Shri. Mundhe. The employees of Dr. Shri. Mundhe have given such statements. The statements also show that Mundhe was adopting some procedure in such cases and that procedure was started as his permission to use diagnostic technique was cancelled. Every day he used to send his 34 such cases to the hospital of Dr. Kolhe from Jalgaon in a vehicle. After determination of sex of foetus in the hospital of Dr. Kolhe, he used to examine the patients again and then they used to cause abortion of the foetus. As per the record, center for abortion was approved in his name in the past, though it was cancelled before the incident in question. 13. The statement of employee Rahul, Compounder of this hospital shows that Vijaymala was brought to the hospital on 17.5.2012 by her husband. It shows that Dr. Mundhe examined her and then he referred Vijaymala to Dr. Kolhe from Jalgaon. As per the statement, as usual Vijaymala was taken to Jalgaon, sex of foetus was determined, Vijaymala was brought back to Mundhe Hospital on 18.5.2012 and in the night time, the abortion was caused. Smt. Mundhe gave medicines and other treatment. The statement further shows that the condition of Smt. Vijaymala became critical after the operation and Dr. Shri. Mundhe again examined her. Dr. Mundhe arranged for disposal of the foetus and in this case, he took the foetus personally to his field to hand it over to his employees in the field. There are such statements of employees, who were working in the field of Dr. Shri. Mundhe. The statement of Sweeper of Dr. Shri. Mundhe shows that she had talk with the deceased Vijaymala prior to the starting of the treatment. It shows that the deceased had informed that she had four daughters and again she was carrying female foetus. There are statements of other employees of the hospital which are similar to the statement of Compounder. The statements of two employees working in the field of Dr. It shows that the deceased had informed that she had four daughters and again she was carrying female foetus. There are statements of other employees of the hospital which are similar to the statement of Compounder. The statements of two employees working in the field of Dr. Shri. Mundhe show that almost every day or every alternate day, they were required to destroy by burning the fetuses which were brought from the hospital of Dr. Mundhe. The statements show that on 18th Shri. Mundhe had come to them personally with the foetus and he had given special instructions for burning of foetus. It needs to be kept in mind that there are the allegations against the previous Investigating Officer and it can be said that at that time, proper investigation was not made. 14. The record of Hospital of Dr. Kolhe is collected by investigating agency. As per the record, Dr. Mundhe had referred more than 50 such patients for sonography between January 2012 and June 2012. This record was maintained as there is the practice amongst doctors to give commission of doctor, who refers the patients. Here, it needs to be kept in mind that permission of using sonography machine, diagnostic techniques of Dr. Kolhe was already cancelled, but Mundhe was referring the patients to him. The papers of investigation show that the record as required under MTP Act and PCPNDT Act was not maintained by both these hospitals. 15. The aforesaid record and the submissions show that both the applicants were causing or aiding for the determination of sex. They were also causing abortion illegally in their hospital. Atleast two cases of such abortion are filed against this couple. There is allegation that they were causing abortion of female foetus and they were never maintaining proper record as provided under PCPNDT Act. 16. The two special Acts like MTP Act and PCPNDT Act are made with specific purpose. The provisions of MTP Act show that the termination of pregnancy is ordinarily to be done in the Government Hospital. The termination can also be done at a place approved by the State or District Level Committee (Section 4). At other places, the termination of the pregnancy is not allowed. There is Rule 5 regarding approval of places and conditions of the same are also laid down. The termination can also be done at a place approved by the State or District Level Committee (Section 4). At other places, the termination of the pregnancy is not allowed. There is Rule 5 regarding approval of places and conditions of the same are also laid down. Section 5 (5) provides that when the termination of pregnancy is caused at other places than the places mentioned in section 4 of the Act, it is made punishable with imprisonment of two years and it may extend to seven years. The abortion can be caused only when the conditions laid down in section 3 of the Act are fulfilled. The opinion of one registered medical practitioner, which needs to be given in good faith, needs to be obtained in writing, when the age of the foetus does not exceed 12 weeks. If the age of the foetus is above 12 weeks and it does not exceed 20 weeks, the opinion of two such registered medical practitioners needs to be obtained. Some exceptions are given in that regard. But, it can be said that in the first places the abortion, termination can be caused only in the approved places. The provisions show that they are made to save registered medical practitioner from use of provisions of I.P.C. against them, but for that, he must satisfy the aforesaid conditions. There are some exceptional circumstances, but for that also the act must be done in the approved places. No pregnant woman can be allowed to abort at her will. This position of law also needs to be kept in mind. Prima facie, there has been breach of all such provisions in the present case. 17. The object behind the provisions of PCPNDT Act is the prohibition of sex selection either before or after conception. The sex selection leads to female foetucide. The object shows that it is to prevent the abuse of diagnostic techniques as it is discriminatory against the female sex and it affects the dignity and status of woman. The Act provides the modes, which need to be used to give effect to the provisions of Act. For that, procedure for permission and regularisation of use of such techniques is provided. The diagnosis is possible only under certain conditions and only by registered institutions. Punishment is provided for violation of the provisions. The other object is to uphold the medical ethics. For that, procedure for permission and regularisation of use of such techniques is provided. The diagnosis is possible only under certain conditions and only by registered institutions. Punishment is provided for violation of the provisions. The other object is to uphold the medical ethics. The provisions of section 3 (3) of this Act show that no medical practitioner shall conduct or cause to be conducted or aid in conducting himself or through any other agency to any other person any pre-natal diagnostic technique at place other than the place registered under the Act. Thus, the provision is wide enough to include the instances in which doctors like present matter refer the case to other doctor for diagnosis. Section 3-A is on the same line and it is particularly for sex selection. Section 3 (3) is meant for the use of diagnostic techniques for sex determination. These provisions need to be read together. Section 5 shows that there is prohibition of communicating the sex of foetus. Thus, the doctor, using the techniques, is not allowed to tell the sex of foetus to the pregnant woman or her husband or anybody. Section 6 is made to prevent the use of techniques for sex determination. The wording used in this section is also similar and it is wide enough to include doctor like Shri. Mundhe, who refers the cases to other doctor for sex determination. Section 23 provides for punishment and it shows that for first offence, the imprisonment for three years is provided, but for subsequent offence, the imprisonment may extend for five years. These offences are made cognizable and non bailable. The provision of section 28 regarding cognizance of such offence is already mentioned. 18. As the record was not maintained in both the hospitals, even at later stage, it will be difficult for the applicants to show that there was some emergency and so, they took decision to terminate the pregnancy. When there is a breach of the provisions of such special Acts and when such act is done with the intention to make money, it becomes very easy to draw inference that there was no emergency as such. Further, when there is material of aforesaid nature, prima facie, it can be said that there was the intention to do an act, which was likely to cause death of Vijaymala. The age of foetus was around 18 to 20 weeks. Further, when there is material of aforesaid nature, prima facie, it can be said that there was the intention to do an act, which was likely to cause death of Vijaymala. The age of foetus was around 18 to 20 weeks. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be said that there is strong prima facie case for offence punishable under section 304-I of I.P.C. The punishment of imprisonment for life is provided for this offence. This offence was committed after getting released on bail in other case of illegal abortion by the applicants. If such persons are at large, they are dangerous to the society. It is sure that they will commit similar offence after getting released on bail. 19. The learned counsel for Authority appointed under PCPNDT Act supplied the data regarding the ratio of male-female birth in Beed District, where the applicants were practicing. It is as under:- Sex Ratio at Birth for the Year March 2011 Sr.No. Name of Block Female Male Total Sex Ratio 1. Beed 5691 7118 12809 800 2. Georai 2761 3591 6352 769 3. Majalgaon 1282 1665 2947 770 4. Dharur 868 1092 1960 795 5. Wadwani 774 1080 1854 717 6. Parli 928 1045 1973 888 7. Ambajogai 948 1177 2125 805 8. Kaij 1951 2490 4441 784 9. Shirur 1119 1495 2614 748 10. Patoda 1035 1182 2217 876 11. Ashti 2023 2404 4427 842 Total 19380 24339 43719 796 Sex Ratio at Birth for the Year March 2012 Sr.No. Name of Block Female Male Total Sex Ratio 1. Beed 2424 3290 5714 737 2. Georai 2238 2743 4981 816 3. Majalgaon 1256 1640 2896 766 4. Dharur 693 874 1567 793 5. Wadwani 744 1053 1797 707 6. Parli 436 488 924 893 7. Ambajogai 1257 1557 2814 807 8. Kaij 1387 1743 3130 796 9. Shirur 1043 1332 2375 783 10. Patoda 998 1097 2095 910 11. Ashti 1881 2261 4142 832 Total 14357 18078 32435 826 Department of Public Health Dist. Beed Details of Male Female Sex Ratio For March 2013 Sr.No. Name of Block Female Male Total Sex Ratio 1. Beed 7409 8337 15746 888 2. Georai 3102 3508 6610 884 3. Majalgaon 1636 1737 3373 942 4. Dharur 1035 1149 2184 901 5. Wadwani 797 931 1728 856 6. Parli 1806 1952 3758 925 7. Beed Details of Male Female Sex Ratio For March 2013 Sr.No. Name of Block Female Male Total Sex Ratio 1. Beed 7409 8337 15746 888 2. Georai 3102 3508 6610 884 3. Majalgaon 1636 1737 3373 942 4. Dharur 1035 1149 2184 901 5. Wadwani 797 931 1728 856 6. Parli 1806 1952 3758 925 7. Ambajogai 1588 1766 3354 899 8. Kaij 1119 1254 2373 892 9. Shirur 1238 1361 2599 909 10. Patoda 1047 1156 2203 906 11. Ashti 2125 2500 4625 850 Total 22902 25651 18553 893 Department of Public Health Dist. Beed Details of Male Female Sex Ratio For April & May 2013 Sr.No. Name of Block Female Male Total Sex Ratio 1. Beed 1218 1289 2507 945 2. Georai 573 623 1196 920 3. Majalgaon 347 357 704 972 4. Dharur 150 216 366 694 5. Wadwani 119 165 284 721 6. Parli 231 268 499 862 7. Ambajogai 113 109 222 1037 8. Kaij 141 152 293 928 9. Shirur 104 118 222 881 10. Patoda 57 70 127 814 11. Ashti 251 283 534 887 Total 3304 3650 6954 905 The aforesaid data shows that the rate of birth of female child had gone down to 796 due to female foetucide. The data shows that when the authority became active and it started acting against such doctors, things improved and the figure crossed 900. The aforesaid material is sufficient to show that the applicants had played leading role in bringing down the rate of birth of female child in Beed District. 20. Dr. Shri. Mundhe is behind bars in C.R. No. 42/2012 and also in cases filed under PCPNDT Act. There is no question of granting discretionary relief in favour of Dr. Shri. Mundhe in view of the aforesaid circumstances. Hon'ble Apex Court has refused bail to him in one PCPNDT case. Thus, it is not a fit case to grant bail to Dr. Shri. Mundhe. So, the Criminal Application bearing No. 1055/2013 needs to be rejected. 21. Dr. Smt. Mundhe got bail from Sessions Court in C.R. No. 42/2012. The order made by Sessions Court in Criminal Application No. 425/2012 shows that the previous application bearing No. 398/2012 was rejected on merits on 23.8.2012 after considering all the material which was collected by the police against Smt. Dr. Mundhe. 21. Dr. Smt. Mundhe got bail from Sessions Court in C.R. No. 42/2012. The order made by Sessions Court in Criminal Application No. 425/2012 shows that the previous application bearing No. 398/2012 was rejected on merits on 23.8.2012 after considering all the material which was collected by the police against Smt. Dr. Mundhe. In that order, the same Presiding Officer had refused to accept the proposition that the offence would fall under section 304-A of I.P.C. The order made on 24.9.2012 shows that the circumstance of filing of chargesheet is treated as change in circumstance when there was no more material collected by police. No new circumstance was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of which the Sessions Court could have granted bail on the ground that Smt. Dr. Mundhe is a lady. The learned APP, who argued for State pointed out from the say given by the State to bail application filed in the Sessions Court that antecedents of Smt. Dr. Mundhe were pointed out to the Court and aforesaid circumstances were argued. One more circumstance was there. In one PCPNDT case the proclamation was issued against both these accused to declare them absconding. It appears that for some time, one order was in favour of this couple. The process issued by J.M.F.C. in R.C.C. No. 302/2010 was set aside by Sessions Court in one revision. This decision was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 548/2012 and this Court set aside the judgment and order delivered by the Sessions Court in revision. 22. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the aforesaid circumstances. Only because Smt. Mundhe is a lady, the concession which can be given by using discretion to a lady, cannot be given in favour of accused like Smt. Mundhe. 23. For Smt. Mundhe, her learned counsel placed reliance on some reported cases. In the case reported as 1999 AIR (SC) 3026 [Subhendu Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra], the Apex Court has discussed the factors on the basis of which bail can be cancelled. It is observed that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in mechanical manner, without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. In other cases reported as 2009 (2) Bom. It is observed that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in mechanical manner, without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. In other cases reported as 2009 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 491 (SUPREME COURT) [Manjit Prakash & Ors. Vs. Shobha Devi and Anr.], the Apex Court has discussed the difference between setting aside unjustified, illegal or perverse order of bail and cancelling bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of new facts requiring such cancellation. In the case reported as 2004 ALL.M.R.(Cri) 2126 [Ashesh Goradia & anrother Vs. Anish D. Shah & others], this Court has observed that unless very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are shown, the bail once granted cannot be cancelled. In the case reported as 1996 (3) Bom.C.R. 570 [Babulal Chottelal Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra] (Bombay High Court), some circumstances in which bail can be cancelled are mentioned. There cannot be any dispute over the propositions made in the aforesaid cases. 24. In the case reported as AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 296 [Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.], the Apex Court has discussed the provisions of section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. with reference to the landmark case of Supreme Court like RuranVs. Rambilas and Anr. reported as AIR 2001 SC 2023 . The observations are as follows : "While cancelling bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the Court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlaying the power to grant bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlaying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society." 25. In view the aforesaid position of law and the facts of this case, this Court holds that bail cannot be granted to Smt. Mundhe in Criminal Application No. 3350/2013. Further, the bail granted to her by Sessions Court in C.R. No. 42/2012 needs to be cancelled. After cancellation of bail granted to Smt. Mundhe in C.R. No. 42/2012, granting of bail in application No. 3350/2013 would become meaningless. As the proceedings have arisen out of the same incident and the applicants are the main offenders, this Court holds that no bail can be granted to them. So the order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application Nos. 3350/2013 and 1055/2013 stand rejected. Rule stands discharged in these proceedings. (ii) Criminal Application No. 4774/2012 is allowed. The order made by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Criminal Application No. 425/2012 is hereby set aside and the bail granted in favour of Dr. Smt. Saraswati w/o. Sudam Mundhe stands cancelled. She is to be arrested and committed to the custody in this case also. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms so far as Criminal Application No. 4774/2012 is concerned.