1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3501 /2010 [Samsherkhan s/o Gulsherkh vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Anil S Mardikar Adv. for applicant Mr K S Dhote APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2010. Heard. 2. The applicant is seeking grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 77/2009 reported under section 302 read with sec. 34 IPC reported at Malkapur City Police station Dist. Buldana,. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the co-accused Naziyabee was granted benefit of bail by order dated 22nd September, 2009 in Criminal Application No.3188 /2009 I have carefully perused the order sought to be relied upon. The present applicant can not claim parity with co-accused Naziyabee because she was granted the benefit of bail mainly on the ground that she is was a young lady of 25 years having children to look after and furthermore no active role was attributed to her in the alleged incident of wife burning; whereas the present applicant has been implicated consistently in the dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 1.8.2009 between 8.50 and 9.10 a.m. and also 2 subsequently recorded between 1.12 p.m. & 1.37 p.m. by another Executive Magistrate. The Investigation Officer also appears to have recorded statement in the nature of dying declaration. Thus, all these dying declarations pointed out the involvement of the applicant/accused as one who had poured kerosene on the person and set her ablaze. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was married with Reshma (deceased ) on 25th May 2009 while the incident occurred as early as 1st August 2009. 3. For the reasons aforesaid, the present applicant can not be granted benefit of bail. Earlier also he had moved for bail which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana by order dated 10.11.2009 in Misc. Bail Application No.452/2009 by a well-reasoned order. I am not inclined to take a different view of the matter than that taken by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Application is rejected. However, the trial Court is expected to hear the Sessions case as early as possible since charge sheet is already filed. JUDGE sahare