1 S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5894/2009. (Geeta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of Order ::: 4th December 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. H.S.Sidhu, for the petitioners. Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously pressed on the bail plea of the petitioners particularly with the submissions that the injured Smt.Sunita has taken rather shifting and incompatible stands; that the story as narrated in the FIR is not corroborated in her statement said to have been recorded in the burns ward of the hospital; that the supplementary statement as made by her on 18.09.2009 has further been of the modification and alteration of the earlier stand. The learned counsel has also referred to the statement of the neighbour Gopal that the present petitioners were sleeping in their house at the time of alleged incident. The learned counsel has further argued that the injured very consciously avoided to refer to the name of Om Prakash who received burn injuries in the effort to put off the fire as is apparent from his injury report. The learned counsel has also submitted that very story as suggested that the petitioners with other persons put the injured on fire for a simple dispute about grazing of goats, remains baseless and unbelievable. However, the submissions aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, do not make out a case for grant of bail at this stage of 2 the proceedings particularly when the petitioners are accused of offences under Sections 457, 307 IPC on the allegations of having put the injured on fire after pouring kerosene over her while she was sleeping on the terrace. It has also been contended that the co-accused Roshni w/o Gopal has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh and on parity, the petitioners also deserve indulgence but then, it is noticed that the said co-accused has been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge while distinguishing her case for the reason that she was not named in the initial statements and so also in the FIR. The bail application moved on behalf of the petitioners Geeta w/o Mohanpuri and Maya d/o Mohanpuri under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected at this stage. However, in the circumstances, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that if the petitioners make a request to the learned Trial Court for expeditious proceedings and for examination of the injured-complainant Smt. Sunita at the first, the same be given due consideration. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK