1 Cri.Appln.No.758/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.758/2011 1) Shinubai Maruti Yemule and Anr. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.VD Gunale, Advocate for Applicants; Mr.KM Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 10th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. 2) The accused/applicants, mother-in-law, aged 65 years and sister-in-law, aged 25 years, seek bail in Crime No.123/2010 registered at Udgir (Rural) Police Station, for an offence under Sections 302, 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3) The learned Counsel for the applicants submits, the accused/applicants are infirm and in custody from 27.8.2010. The dying declaration itself is in a doubtful situation, as the victim – Chitrakala was not in a position to make any statement, and more particularly, to implicate 2 Cri.Appln.No.758/2011 the accused/applicants. The Counsel further submits, the neighbours or the persons, who carried the victim, did not inform of any atrocious act by the accused/applicants. The Counsel further submits, Charge sheet is file and hence the applicants be released on bail. 4) The learned APP submits, within a period of three months of the marriage of the victim, the incident has taken place. The parents of the deceased have implicated the accused/applicants with ill-treatment for non- compliance of balance dowry of Rs.30,000/-. 5) Apparently, heena after the marriage, having performed on 24.5.2010, was not dried and the victim Chitrakala succumbed to the burn injuries on 26.8.2010 on the alleged not bringing a Saree on the occasion of Raksha-Bandhan. The deficiencies in the dying declaration, to which reference is given, are not to be considered in depth at this stage. The medical certificate about fitness to make statement, will have to be explained at the proper time. The victim even if has suffered 95% or 100% burns, however, the inquest illustrate her face and the upper body portion was not so damaged. Even if my attention is invited to the spot panchanama at page 42, however, that by itself will not be leading impetus to the contents of the accused/applicant. Though applicants/accused are female claim to be 3 Cri.Appln.No.758/2011 infirm, however, the volume and velocity with which they have committed perverse heinous act, does not call for any interference to release them on bail. The criticism to the order of the learned Sessions judge is uncalled for. The application lacks merit, rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/