1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 235 OF 2011 ( Sainath Narayan Karlekar Vs. State of Mah. PSO PS City Police Station Chandrapur) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri D. K. Hazare Adv for applicant. Shri S. S. Doifode APP for non applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 14th JULY, 2011. . This is an application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 93 of 2011 registered at City Police Station Chandrapur for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant/accused married Nilima/deceased in the year 2007. Applicant is a teacher in Zilla Parishad School. Out of this wedlock they have a daughter 18 months old. On 09.06.2011 at about 4 a.m. while applicant and Nilima/deceased were sleeping, there was fire in the room. Deceased sustained 98% burns and thereafter in the noon she 2 succumbed to the injuries. Applicant sustained about 38% burns and is admitted to the hospital. On the basis of report lodged by the father of the deceased offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the applicant and his mother. In the First Information Report, it is alleged that on receiving the information of the mishap he rushed to the hospital at about 9 to 9.30 a.m. Deceased disclosed to him that the applicant had set her on fire. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that he requested the authority for recording her dying declaration but in vain. In support of the application for anticipatory bail the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon two circumstances like extensive burns sustained by the applicant and statements of the witnesses who had seen the applicant extinguishing the fire on the person of the deceased. He also relied upon a judgment delivered by the Single Judge of this Court in case of Bhaurao Abaji Dhandre Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1730. In that in some what similar circumstances, accused was released on bail. The contents in the F. I. R. that deceased had made disclosure to her father cannot at this stage be negatived. When 3 the accident occurred it was 4 a.m. It is not a case that some kerosene lamp was burning or deceased was operating any kerosene stove or gas stove. These circumstances are significant. The allegations leveled against the applicant at this stage cannot be termed as baseless or false. Considering nature of accusation custodial interrogation is imperative. In view of this there is no merit in this application . Application is rejected. JUDGE svk