{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1110 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Bapurao Ganpatrao Kadam & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs. V.A.Shinde, Advocate for the applicant State Mr. D.M.Shinde, Advocate for the respondents ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22 nd June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicant State has challenged the order dated 19th November 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed in Criminal M.A. No.142/2008. By the said order, the respondents were directed to be released on bail. 2. Heard learned APP for applicant State followed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned APP has asserted that while releasing the {2} respondents on bail, the learned lower court has not considered the material placed before it. According to learned APP, the facts disclosed in the spot Panchanama as well as in the dying declaration, were not considered by the learned lower court while granting bail to the present respondents. 4. In the light of these submissions, perused the impugned order so also the documents which were produced before the lower court. On bare perusal of the compliant it is crystal clear that respondent No.1, father in law of the victim, was far way from the spot of incident at the relevant time, as he was on pilgrimage. In the premise, there is no question of participation of respondent No.1 in the alleged offence. Likewise, respondent No.3 is mother in law of the victim. In para No.7 of the impugned order, the learned lower court has observed that the grand child of respondents No.1 and 3 was 1 year old and there was nobody to look after the infant and hence respondent No.3 was released on bail. In the premise, no illegality is found in the order impugned while releasing respondents No.1 and 3. 5. At the same time, in para 8 of the impugned order it is observed that the respondent No.2 has not set the victim on fire, as per her own statement and hence there is no active participation of respondent No.2 even as per the dying declaration of the victim. {3} 6. On overall perusal of the observations of the lower court, I do not notice any perversity in the order impugned so also I do not see that the material produced before the lower court was not properly appreciated, as alleged. On the contrary, the entire material produced before the lower court is properly appreciated by the lower court while passing the impugned order. 7, In the premise, the application is devoid of any merit and hence stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1110-09