1 appln4036.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4036 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2011 Shaikh Rafiq S/o Abdul Gafoor Shaikh and others ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra & anr. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.K. Chaudhari, advocate for the applicants. Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Smt. S.T. Kazi, advocate for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND A.M. THIPSAY , JJ. DATE : 14th December, 2011 P. C. : 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have seen the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal has already been admitted on 16th September, 2011. 2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the nature of the evidence in the case in hand is based on the written dying declaration Exhibit-58, which is on record. Apart from 2 appln4036.11 the said document, the prosecution has relied upon the oral dying declaration, which is supported by the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5. There is no dispute about the fact that the present case is of death of Farzana, which is caused by 100% burn injuries. According to the learned counsel for the applicants the oral dying declaration is inconsistent. He, therefore, submits that in view of the inconsistency in the dying declaration, the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail. According to him, one of the witness on the point of oral dying declaration points out the number of applicants by showing four fingers. He pointed out the observations of the learned Trial Court on page No. 21 in paragraph No.20 that the learned trial Court did not accept the oral dying declaration and the evidence of PW-5 in that respect. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants, who has also pointed out the evidence of panch witness and admission given by the said panch witness in the cross examination, requires reappreciation and deep scrutiny. At this stage it is not possible to do so. In other word, this is not a fit case wherein the applicants can be enlarged on bail. 4. The circumstance that the applicants were on bail during the trial and they had not misused the said liberty granted 3 appln4036.11 by the trial Court is considered by us. We are not inclined to allow the present application. 5. In the result, the application stands rejected. The hearing of the appeal is however expedited since the private paper book is filed on record. Liberty in favour of the applicants to apply for fixed date of hearing. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) ( S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) sga/appln4036.11