IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3881 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3881 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3881 OF 2007 1. Rajkumar Gangaram Gupta 2. Gangaram Shankar Gupta 3. Bhurabai Gangaram Gupta ..Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Ganesh Gole for the Applicants Mr.Saste for the Respondent State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. P.C. 1. The applicants are arrested in C.R.No. 82 of 2007 of Karjat Police Station. Initially they were arrested under Section 307, 354, 323, 498A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Neelam Gupta, deceased happened to be wife of applicant No.1. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the in laws. 2. Chargesheet has already been filed and I have perused the chargesheet. After advancing some submissions Mr. Gole for the applicant submitted that the applicant No.1, husband of Neelam is not pressing this application as of today and seeks liberty to file a separate application after some days by making out an independent case on the basis of chargesheet. He submitted that as of today the case of applicant Nos.2 and 3 being the in laws be considered. 3. I have considered the chargesheet as well as the record in line with submissions advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Gole. The record indicates that there are as many as three dying declarations, no.1 being the statement made to the police by Neelam, No.2 being formal dying declaration recorded on 16.7.2007. In these two dying declarations Neelam speaks of she having committed suicide as a result of alleged cruelty meted out to her by her husband and inlaws whereas the third dying declaration dated 18.7.2007 speaks of the husband and the in laws having poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. This aspect was put before this Court by the learned Advocate. He prays for bail for the father-in-law and mother-in-law contending that the deceased has been changing her statement and that is how the case for bail is made out. 4. The applicants are arrested soon after the occurrence and that is how they are in jail. After having considered the chargesheet and keeping in view that the applicant No.2 is aged about 58 years and the applicant No.3 is aged about 50 years, right now, I am inclined to grant them by putting them to terms and conditions. 5. The contention on behalf of the State that because the applicants hail from U.P. they would not make themselves available cannot be seriously accepted once they are put to terms and conditions. 6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following Order. ORDER i) Applicant No.1 is permitted to withdraw this application, and accordingly application is withdrawn so far as applicant No.1 is concerned. Liberty is granted to applicant No.1 to file fresh application in future as and when desired by him. No views are expressed so far as the applicant No.1 is concerned. ii) The applicant No.2 Gangaram Shankar Gupta and applicant No.3 Bhurabai Gangaram Gupta are granted bail and it is hereby ordered that each of them be released on bail in C.R.No.82 of 2007 of Karjat Police Station in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount. Each of the applicant shall execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). iii) Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 shall report to the Karjat Police Station on every second Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till evidence of parents of Neelam is over. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)