{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4435 OF 2009 Nandabai w/o Gorakh Misal Age-47 years, Occ-Household R/o Golwadi, Tq-Vaijapur Dist-Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Investigation Officer, Vaijapur Police Station, Tq-Kannad Dist-Aurangabad RESPONDENT ....... Mr.R.V.Gore, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for her release on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with CR No.218/2009 registered with Vaijapur Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 307, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. {2} 3. During the course of submissions, my attention is drawn towards the FIR, which is recorded immediately after the alleged incident took place in the night of 14th and 15th October 2009. It is alleged by the victim Sunita, wife of Bhausaheb that a quarrel took place between herself and her husband on the count that her husband was having relations with one Sangita and when the victim Sunita opposed the same, dispute took place and at that time in laws of the victim caught hold of her and her husband poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. It is further alleged that hearing her shouts, present applicant and her husband rushed to the spot and rescued the victim. This is the first statement of the victim on the basis of which the offence is registered. It appears that later on one more statement of the victim came to be recorded on 20th October 2009 wherein she has alleged that at the time of the incident, present applicant and her husband also had caught hold her her and her husband, by pouring kerosene on her person, set her on fire. 4. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the second statement, recorded after a gap of 8 days, is nothing but an attempt to implicate the applicant in the said offence and hence it is urged that the application be allowed. 5. The application is opposed by the learned APP on the ground that on perusal of the subsequent statement of the victim there is clear involvement of the present applicant in the said {3} offence. 6. It is not necessary to enter into the controversy as to which statement is correct and true, at this juncture. However, fact remains that initially statement of the victim was recorded where she did not attribute any role to the present applicant, on the contrary she had disclosed that at the time of alleged incident, the applicant and her husband tried to rescue her. It is also necessary to note that even the name of the present applicant is not arrayed as an accused. Considering the variance in the two statements of the victim and initial statement, which was recorded immediately after the incident, without giving any opportunity to think to involve somebody or not, which shows no role played by the applicant, case is made out to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. In the result, application is allowed. The applicant be released on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with CR No.218/2009, on her furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency and to attend the concerned police station whenever required for investigation. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln4435-09