abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 162 OF 2008 Vijay Dinkar Patil .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.J. Shekhar for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant, who is the husband of the deceased, has been arrested in connection with the offence registered with Tembhurni Police Station, Solapur under C.R. No.132/2007 punishable under sections 302 and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant is in custody since 23rd August - 2 - 2007. The previous application for bail filed by the applicant has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 26th December 2007. Hence, the applicant has filed this application for bail. 4. Sonali, who is the deceased wife of the applicant, was burnt on 19th August 2007. She was admitted to the hospital by the applicant immediately after the incident. Her dying declaration was recorded at 19.40 p.m. on the same day. In the dying declaration, the deceased stated that in the afternoon at 3.00 p.m. she was alone in the house. From the window, she saw her husband coming to the house and therefore she started preparing tea for him. At that time, she caught fire because of accidental fall of palloo of her saree on the gas. At that time, the door was bolted from inside and therefore nobody could enter the house. The husband and other relatives entered the house by breaking open the door, doused the fire and admitted the deceased to the hospital. The deceased stated that she had no complaint against anyone. The second dying declaration of the deceased was recorded at 0.40 hours on 20th August 2007. In the second dying declaration, the deceased stated that her husband, brother in law, mother in law, sister in law and Sandhya-wife of the brother in law burnt her. - 3 - 5. Both the dying declarations are inconsistent with each other. On my query, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the spot panchanama was made and it was found that the outer door was broken open. If so, this would show that the deceased was alone in the house and therefore she had to be rescued by the applicant by breaking open the door. The first dying declaration is thus corroborated by this evidence. 6. It may also be noted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant but he has been made accused along with brother in law, mother in law, sister in law and other relatives against whom joint allegation has been made without assigning any specific role to the applicant. By an order dated 4th December 2007 passed by this Court (by me), sister in law of the deceased has been granted bail. As stated above, the role alleged against the applicant and the sister in law is identical. Hence, on the ground of parity also, the applicant is entitled to bail. 6. Taking into consideration these facts, in my view, the applicant is entitled to bail. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER ORDER ORDER - 4 - The applicant be released on bail in respect of the offence mentioned above on his executing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned police station once a month between 1st and 5th of every British calendar month. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)