Judgment:
Satya Prakash Pathak, J.
1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order.
2. Both these bail applications arise out of a common FIR No. 29/2005, therefore, they are decided by this common order.
3. The contention of learned Counsel is that in the dying declaration of the deceased, the deceased has not involved the accused petitioners. It is also submitted that accused petitioners are sister-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased. It is further submitted that after 46 days of the incident, case has been registered against the accused petitioners, therefore, cases of the petitioners be considered for bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the dying declaration and the fact that after 46 days of the incident, cases have been registered without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners (i) Smt. Rekha W/o Kana Ram (in SB Cr. Misc. Bail No. 5740/2006) and (ii) Jetudi W/o Hema Ram (In SB Cr. Misc. Bail No. 5810/2006) shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 29/2005 P.S. Khunkhuna provided both of them execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for their appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.