1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2010 Prakash S/o.Narayan Wakde, Age-32 years, Occu-Contractor, R/o.Dhanora Kh., Rq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant in CR No.99/2009 has approached this Court for his release on bail, as investigation in this case is already over and charge sheet is filed on 30/11/2009. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out, as the charge sheet is already filed in this offence. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, as well as the 2 perusal of papers of investigation, it can not be disputed that CR No. 99/2009, registered against the present applicant and CR No. 100/2009 registered against deceased Sunil, who was arrayed as an accused on the complaint of present applicant in that crime, both these crimes are offshoot of the incident occurred in the night of 08/06/2009, wherein according to deceased Sunil, he was called by the present applicant and kerosene/explosive substance was poured on his person and deceased was set on fire and at that time, deceased hold applicant and applicant also sustained burn injuries. Both were admitted in the hospital. 4. According to the complaint lodged at the instance of the applicant, it is the deceased who poured kerosene on himself as well as on the person of the present applicant and set them on fire. Earlier offence was registered against the present applicant u/s. 307 r/w. 34 of IPC as the said Sunil succumbed to death on 02/07/2009, this offence was converted u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. 5. It can not be disputed from the statement of witnesses, recorded during the investigation, it revealed that there is dispute of money in between applicant and deceased Sunil, as according to deceased Sunil, on oral agreement, he has taken over the Co- operative Credit Society run by the present applicant. As the signature and authority of the present applicant was suspected to be forged by the deceased and hence on the application of present applicant, the payment was stopped by the bank. This fact can be 3 gathered from the statement of witnesses recorded. 6. According to learned APP, dying declaration of deceased was recorded implicating the present applicant in the said offence. As against this, in both these offences, statement of the only eye witness by name Shivdas Kerba was recorded on 10/06/2009. On perusal of this statement of the eye witness it revealed that it supported the stand taken by the present applicant and not supported the dying declaration of deceased recorded during the investigation. If it is so, then there are no chances of tampering of the witnesses, whose statements were recorded during the investigation at the hands of present applicant. 7. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail on certain conditions. O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to contact with the prosecution witnesses in respect of CR No.99/2009. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.6-10