1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUTISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5027 OF 2009 Rajendra Sudhakar Aher .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. Vivek V. Salunke for the applicant. Mr. S. Ashwin, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with the offence punishable under sections 306, 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is registered with Panchavati Police Station vide C.R. No.494 of 2009. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that vague allegations have been made by mother of the deceased in her 2 complaint against the present applicant. The deceased was second wife of the applicant and she died of burn injuries on 19/10/2009. Counsel for the applicant submits that in her dying declaration which was recorded by the constable, she has not made any allegations against the present applicant and has stated that the said burn injuries were caused as a result of accidental burns. He, therefore, submitted that prima facie case is made out by the applicant for grant of bail. 4. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the Counsel for applicant. In the complaint, mother of the deceased has made specific allegation against the applicant and other family members that they used to harass her physically and mentally and used to demand money from her from time to time. A dying declaration has been recorded by the constable and not by the Special Judicial Magistrate. The said dying declaration is not signed by the deceased. Hence, at this stage, much reliance cannot be placed on the said dying declaration. In any event, taking into consideration seriousness of the said offence, no case has been made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected 3 6. At this stage, Counsel for the applicant seeks some protection to the applicant since the interim protection was granted by the Sessions Court. This request is declined. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)