Vijay Kumar Verma, J. - (1.) AGA has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and AGA for the State. The allegation against the applicant Smt. Manju Devi is that she had set the deceased Smt. Seema Devi on fire on catching hold by co-accused Ram Katori on 23.01.2008. The first and foremost submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the co-accused Ram Katori, who has been assigned the role of catching hold the deceased, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 23.09.2008, passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 12752 of 2008 and hence, on the principle of parity, the applicant deserves bail. On this point it is suffice to say that the parity is not the sole ground for granting bail, as held by this Court in Shahnawaz @ Sanu vs. State of U.P.2007 (66) ACC 189. Therefore, the applicant cannot be released on bail on the basis of the bail order dated 23.09.2008, whereby the co-accused Smt. Ram Katori has been granted bail. Moreover, from the dying declaration (annexure-4), this fact is borne out that the role of pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire has been attributed to the applicant Smt. Manju Devi, whereas the role of catching hold was assigned to co-accused Smt. Ram Katori. Hence on this ground also, the applicant can not be released on bail on the ground of parity.
(3.) ON merit, it is submitted by learned counsel that in the FIR lodged by husband of the deceased on 29.02.2008, the applicant was not named and subsequently, she has been falsely roped in this case. Next submission is that the applicant is in jail since 30.07.2008 and hence, on the basis of long detention period in jail, the applicant deserves bail now, as due to delay in trial, her fundamental right of speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated.;