1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1772 OF 2009. 1. Rukhminbai w/o Suresh Shejole. 2. Meerabai w/o Raju Shejole. ...Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1922 OF 2009. Sangita Sandu Folane ...Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. ... Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the applicants in Criminal Application No.1772/2009. Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the applicant in Criminal Application No.1922/2009. Mr.J.S.Gavane, APP for the respondent in both the applications. ... 2 CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 23rd June, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. Both these applications can be decided by this common order because the applicants are accused in the same case. 2. The applicants are accused of committing murder of one Sangita, a woman aged 22 years, r/o: village Dhavada, Taluka: Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. 3. The deceased is the first informant. She made her statement before the Executive Magistrate on 22nd of May, 2009 at about 09.50 p.m. She stated that the incident occurred on 15th May, 2009 and after she was brought to hospital, she made a statement that it was a case of accident, due to bursting of stove her clothes caught fire and she sustained burn injuries. She stated that her previous statement was false one and she said that the applicants here, initially asked her that she should die because she was not begetting children. She said, due to this taunting and teasing, she felt frustration and anger. Upon this, the applicant Sangita brought from her house a can of kerosene to her. She said, she then poured kerosene from that can on her person and thereafter applicant Sangita set her on fire. The other 3 applicants Rukhminibai and Meerabai, according to the complainant, did not participate in the event of setting her on fire. 4. The very fact that the complainant made two different statements at two different times, makes the prosecution case very weak, as far as the decision on bail application is concerned. Besides, the applicants are women and deserve to be treated differently. All these applicants, in my view deserve bail. They deserved bail long back when their bail applications were decided by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalna. The lerned Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalna, while deciding the application took notice of the two different dying declarations, but refused bail saying, “investigation was at crucial stage” This apparently, was factually incorrect observation. The incident had taken place on 15th of May, 2009. The second dying declaration was made on 22nd May, 2009 and deceased died on 26th May, 2009. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalna was deciding the application on 5th June, 2009. By that time, the applicants were taken in Magisterial Custody indicating that the investigation is over as far as their role is concerned. The glaring error in his order is, he did not separate the case as against the applicants Rukhminibai & Meerabai whose role was less serious. The application is allowed. i) The applicants are released on bail of Rs.5,000/- 4 (Rs.Five Thousand only) each, with one surety in the like amount, each. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp.