IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 28 OF 2009 SHRI. CONCEICAO MANUEL NORONHA THROUGH HIS BROTHER JOSE NORONHA ... Applicant Versus S T A T E THROUGH P. I. QUEPEM POLICE STATION ... Respondent Mr. Arun Bras De Sa,Advocate for the applicant. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 3rd February, 2009 P.C. 1. This is an application for bail. The accused is charged of having committed the murder of his wife by setting her on fire while she was asleep. It is alleged that on 14.07.2007, the husband and wife went to bed. In the middle of night, the deceased wife shouted. She found that she has been set ablaze. At the time of the incident, it is alleged that the deceased, present accused and daughter-in-law of the deceased were at home. The deceased was taken to the hospital, where certain statements were came to be recorded on 18.07.2007. The deceased Iralina died on 19.07.2007 of burn injuries. The police had at that time, registered the case of accidental death. It appears that thereafter, one Joseph, deceased Iralina's brother lodged a report with the police on 29.08.2007 alleging that his sister was set on fire by the accused. Upon this, F.I.R. was registered by the police and the accused has been arrested. The accused had applied for bail before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge refused to grant bail on the ground that there is evidence available against the accused. 2. The learned Counsel for the accused / applicant, submits before me that there is no evidence whatsoever available against the accused, prima facie, to hold that the accused has been guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He submits that the evidence that is available, is the dying declaration of the deceased, which is said to have recorded on 18.07.2007. He submits that if the Court goes through the said statement and accepts it as it is, still there is nothing to connect the accused with the crime. 3. After having gone through the dying declaration, recorded on 18.07.2007, it is apparent that the deceased does not name the accused as culprit. What she says is that somebody from the house, must have done that. It is not disputed that at the time of incident besides the accused, daughter-in-law of the deceased, was also present. It is therefore, not certain as to who had done this and who had set the deceased on fire. 4. The learned Counsel for the State, submits that one Gleva Noronha has given a statement on 18.02.2008 stating that her mother-in-law had given dying declaration when she had visited her in the hospital. My attention was drawn to her supplementary statement dated 18.02.2008. No doubt, Gleva is said to have made the said statement. At this stage, it can only be said that it is too belated. Gleva has had opportunity to make clean breast of the things in the first instance itself. She did not. Her statement would, therefore, not be enough at this stage to say that the accused has been guilty of the offence punishable for death as well as imprisonment for life. There is no evidence available to show that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder. The accused is permanent resident of Goa and is more than 60 years of age. The applicant is suffering from Parkinsonism disease and diabetes. A certificate to that effect is filed. 5. Considering the physical condition of the accused and the fact that there is no evidence forthcoming, this application must be allowed. Hence, the order. (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The accused be released on bail on his entering into a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-with one surety in the like amount. (ii) Bail to be furnished before the Sessions Court. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA