1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 959 OF 2009 Maheboob Sujatali Shaikh, R/o. Khurdali, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ....Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1676 OF 2009 Ashibi Sujatali Shaikh, R/o. Khurdali, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ....Respondents. Mr.S.S.Choudhari, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.N.H. Borade, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 26th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Both these applications are decided by this common order because the applicants are seeking bail in the same offence. The applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 7/2009 registered by Chakur 2 Police Station, District Latur on 9th of January 2009. The police initially registered the offence under section 307, 498-A, I.P.C. But, due to death of deceased, the charge was altered to section 302. 2. The applicants are accused of committing murder of applicant Maheboob's wife. The applicant Ashibi is mother of applicant Maheboob and mother in law of the deceased. Before the death of the victim, she made two dying declarations while she was taking treatment in the hospital. In both these statements, she specifically stated that it was her mother in law who poured kerosene on her person and husband Maheboob then set her on fire by a match stick. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants, however, brought to my notice the contents of the letter of medical officer who treated the deceased, dated 4th of January 2009. He pointed out that on that day the victim was brought to the hospital. On examining her the medical officer sent the letter to the Police Sub-Inspector, Chakur Police Station stating that the patient had suffered burn injuries because of an accident. The learned counsel for the applicants thus contended that it was a case of accident and not a case of murder. He suggested that after 3 days when the victim's relatives arrived at the hospital, they tutored her to name the applicants as perpetrators. But I do not agree with this suggestion. The medical officer might have received one sided information regarding the incident from the applicants, who accompanied the victim to the 3 hospital since beginning. The victim, it appears, was able to make her statement for the first time only on 7th of January 2009. Earlier to that though she was in hospital from 4th of January, her statement was not recorded. The delay in recording her dying declaration was probable because she was unable to make such statement earlier. The case against the applicant Maheboob is therefore, very strong and he could not be released on bail. Hence, the criminal application No. 959 of 2009 is dismissed. 3. But, I am inclined to release the applicant Ashibi on bail, mainly because she is a woman and an aged one. I am told that she is about 65 years old. Hence, the criminal application No. 1676 of 2009 is allowed. The applicant Ashibi is released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. [ A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ] ssc/959.09