: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4489 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4489 OF 2006 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4489 OF 2006 1.Ganpat Bapu Dhuri 2.Sou. Shobha @ Rukmini Savlaram Waghmare ...Applicants. V/s. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. Mr.Khandeparkar, adv. i/b M/s.Khandeparkar & Associates for the Applicant. Mr.U.V.Nikam, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 8th February, 2007. DATE : 8th February, 2007. DATE : 8th February, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard MR.Khandeparkar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Nikam, the learned APP for the State. 2. On 29 January, 2007 bail was granted by this Court to the applicant no.1, who is father-in-law of the complainant, while time of 10 days was granted to the prosecution to get instructions and to produce papers as far as applicant no.2 is concerned. However, Mr.Nikam today informs that inspite of wireless message given to Goa police , no material has been made available to him. 3. It was noted that on 19-11-2006, the complainant Shweta, wife of Satish had suffered burn injuries varying from 38 to 55% on the upper portion of : 2 : her body. She was taken to Goa Medical College Hospital where she was admitted on 20-11-2006. As per the case history recorded at Goa Medical College Hospital, she had suffered burn injuries on account of stove bursting at 9.30 p.m. on 19-11-2006. For the first time on 26-11-2006, she lodged report at police station of Vengurla, District Sindhudurg that applicant no.2 had caught hold of her and poured kerosene on her while father-in-law had actually set her ablaze with the matchstick. The offence under sections 307 and 498(A) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. came to be registered. From the above, it becomes clear that 2 contradictory stories have come up. In view of these conflicting stories, I find that applicant no.2, who is a young lady, should also be granted bail. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, applicant no.2 is granted bail in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties in the like amount with the condition that she will not tamper prosecution evidence and shall report at the police station as and when required till the investigation is completed. 5. Application stands disposed off. : 3 : (J.H.Bhatia,J.) (J.H.Bhatia,J.) (J.H.Bhatia,J.)