1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.2142/2008 In Criminal Appeal No.258/2008 [Sau. Leelabai w/o Bapurao Lohakare and another .vrs. The 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. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for the respondent/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JUNE 19, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the respondent/State. 2. According to the prosecution, there was love affair between Raju (the son of appellant no.1 Lilabai and brother of appellant no.2 Ku. Veena) and Sunita Jamkar (deceased). On 20.10.2001, in the night, Raju had been to the house of Sunita. On learning about this, his mother Lilabai and sister 2 Veena went to the house of Sunita and abused her. Thereafter, Lilabai poured kerosene on the person of Sunita and set her on fire. Sunita was removed to hospital where three dying declarations were recorded one after another, first was by API, second was by Executive Magistrate and the third was by again API. In above three dying declarations Sunita consistently stated that it was Lilabai (Appellant No.1) who set her on fire. It seems that Veena (Appellant No.2) was only accompanying her mother Lilabai and she did not take part in setting Sunita on fire. 3. Another ground on which bail is claimed by Appellant No.2 Veena is that during the pendency of the trial, Veena and her mother Lilabai were on bail. In 2005 Veena was married, in 2006 she delivered a son, in 2008 she was convicted by the trial Court and presently she is in jail with her son. Considering the above circumstances, we feel that appellant no.2 Veena deserves to be released on bail. Hence, we pass the following order : 3 4. The application is allowed. Appellant No.2 Veena d/o Bapurao Lohakare be released on her furnishing personal recognizance in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande