1 Criapln4905/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4905 OF 2011 1. Sudam @ Srikant s/o Shantaram Patil 2. Gotu @ Ashok s/o Shantaram Patil Both R/o Vavade, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon Applicants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Shri N.L. Choudhari, Advocate for the applicant Shri D.R. Kale, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides. 2. The applicants have filed this bail application as they are arrested in CR No. 11 of 2011 of Marwad Police Station, District Jalgaon. 3. The F.I.R. is filed by Sangita as regards the incident of 18th February, 2011. She has rendered three Dying Declarations, one after other. In all those Dying Declarations, a certain role is attributed to Sudam, applicant No. 1. She alleges that applicant No. 2 Criapln4905/2011 1 Sudam poured kerosene on her person and put her to fire. Same role is attributed by Vinayak and Bhaskar. 4. It is true that Sumanbai, mother-in-law of Sangita, has rendered a contradictory statement so as to absolve applicant No. 1 Sudam. Same is the position with witness Shobha, who is neighbour of Sangita. These two statements, on close perusal, clearly go to show that they have been rendered primarily to support applicant No. 1 Sudam, who is the main culprit. The Dying Declarations are consistent in reference to the role of applicant No. 1 Sudam. Husband of Sangita involves applicant No. 1 Sudam. Same is the position of Vinayak. I am inclined to give appropriate weightage to these statements and inclined to hold that prima facie case is made out against applicant No. 1 Sudam so as to say that he poured kerosene on the person of Sangita and put her to fire and caused her death by burn injuries. The allegations against applicant No. 1 Sudam are undoubtedly serious. The way in which he 3 Criapln4905/2011 himself conducted at the time of commission of the alleged offence clearly goes to show that he is the main culprit who is capable of putting witnesses under pressure and that is how I am inclined to reject the application of applicant No. 1 Sudam, on merits, after having perused the charge-sheet and other papers. 5. So far as second applicant Gotu is concerned, no doubt his role has been assigned that he was a member of the group who had visited the house of Sangita late in the night of 18th February, 2011. Accused Shantaram Patil and Rajendra Patil were also present alongwith present applicants Gotu and Sudam. Role attributed to Shantaram Patil, Rajendra Patil and applicant No. 2 Gotu is same. It is required to be noted that the bail applications of Shantaram Patil and Rajendra Patil came to be granted by an order dated 27th July, 2011 passed by this Court (T.V. Nalawade, J.). This fact was brought to my notice and principle of parity was pressed in service. The learned A.P.P. opposed the 4 Criapln4905/2011 request. Having perused the order dated 27th July, 2011 and the charge-sheet, this Court is required to grant bail to applicant No. 2 Gotu. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the present application : ORDER A. Application filed by applicant No. 1 Sudam @ Srikant s/o Shantaram Patil is rejected. B. Application filed by applicant No. 2 Gotu @ Ashok s/o Shantaram Patil is granted. C. Applicant No. 2 Gotu @ Ashok s/o Shantaram Patil be released on bail in connection with CR No. 11 of 2011 registered with Marwad Police Station, District Jalgaon, in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. The applicant shall furnish P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand). D. Applicant No. 2 Gotu @ Ashok s/o Shantaram Patil shall report to the concerned police station on every second Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. for a period 5 Criapln4905/2011 of six months. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/8/12/11