1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.971 OF 2010 Soyabai w/o Ramdas Koli and others ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel instructed by Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the applicants Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard Shri V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Shri A.N. Nagargoje, learned counsel for the applicants No.1 to 3 as well as heard Shri K.S. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicants No.1 to 3, requesting to enlarge them on bail in connection with C.R. No. 380/2009, registered with Dhule Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 2 34 of the Indian Penal Code since they were arrested on 30.11.2009 thereunder and they are under judicial custody presently. 3. It appears that, the complaint was registered on the basis of dying declaration of victim Savitabai Gorakh Koli, recorded on 29.10.2009 at about 11.15 p.m. The applicant No.1 is mother- in-law of victim Savita whereas applicant No.2 is her sister-in-law and applicant No.3 is her brother-in-law. The marriage of victim Savita was solemnized with Gorakh about three years back prior to the date of incident. Admittedly, husband Gorakh has not been involved in the alleged offence. 4. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions, it appears that, two dying declarations of the victim Savita were recorded i.e. first dying declaration dated 29.10.2009 at about 11.15 p.m. by Executive Magistrate and the second dying declaration on the same day i.e. 29.10.2009 at about 11.40 p.m. by Police Constable. Apparently, both the said dying declarations are consistent, wherein specific role has been attributed to the applicants that the applicants No.1 and 2 caught-hold of the victim Savita and poured kerosene on her person whereas applicant No.3 Chhotu set her ablaze by lighting a match stick. Thus, apparently, both the said dying declarations 3 connect the applicants with the alleged crime. 5. On the aforesaid background, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants urged that the panchanama dated 30.10.2009 discloses that the inner latch of the room in question was found to be in broken condition and the said aspect creates suspicion about the involvement of the applicants in the alleged crime. In the said context, learned A.P.P. pointed out that the incident occurred on 29.10.2009 and the said panchanama was prepared on the next day i.e. 30.10.2009 and, therefore, this is a matter of appreciation of evidence which can be done at the time of trial and not at this stage. 6. Having the comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that there is incriminating evidence against the applicants to connect them with the alleged crime and, therefore, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants invited my attention to the aspect that the applicant No.1 i.e. mother-in-law of victim Savita is aged about 75 years and she is an ailing old woman. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant also pointed out from Exhibit F, i.e. medical case paper of applicant No. 1 that her weight is hardly 25 Kgs. and, therefore, urged that at 4 least the case of applicant No.1 be considered for the grant of bail. 8. Considering the position that the applicant No.1 is an old woman of 75 years and also considering that she is under medical treatment as per Exhibit B and having meager weight of 25 Kgs., I am of the view that the interest of justice warrants that her application be considered for grant of bail. 9. In the result, the present application preferred by applicant No.2 Sangitabai w/o Chottu Koli and applicant No.3 Chottu @ Somnath s/o Ramdas Koli being sans merits, stand dismissed, whereas the present application is partly allowed to the extent of applicant No.1 namely Sayabai w/o Ramdas Koli and it is directed that, she be released on bail on furnishing surety of Rs. 15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount on term and condition that she shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly/ indirectly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri971.10