1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 551/2011 Shri Gajanan S/o Hanumanlu Jiddewar vs.. State of Maharashtra through the Police Station Officer, Pandharkawda, Tq. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant Mr. A. M. Kadukar, Advocate to assist the prosecution. CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 14.10.2011. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 28/04/2011 in Crime No. 89/2011 registered at Police Station Pandharkawda, Dist. Yavatmal, for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has filed this application for bail. 3. Charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and as per the prosecution case, the applicant got married with the deceased Laxmi on 22/05/2010. The applicant, however, has illicit relationship with one Soni Sandalwar due to which he used to ill-treat and beat his wife (deceased). On 22/04/2011, after beating the deceased, the applicant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The deceased sustained 69% burn injuries and she died on 27/04/2011. 2 4. It is seen from the case diary that there are all together three dying declarations made by the deceased, one recorded by A.P.I. on 22/04/2011, the second by Head Constable on 26/04/2011 and the third by Executive Magistrate on 27/04/2011, and in all the dying declarations, the deceased has implicated the applicant specifically as having poured kerosene on her and having set her on fire. The deceased has also made similar oral declarations to various witnesses. There is also evidence pertaining to the alleged illicit relationship between the applicant and another woman. There is, therefore, strong prima facie case against the applicant regarding murder of his wife. 5. In my view, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage since the witnesses are yet to be examined and there is likelihood that the applicant may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 6. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE Punde.