1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.474 OF 2010. HUSNA AFROZ W/O RASHID KHANAFSARALLIVS VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S. S. Doifode, APP for respondent. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI,J. DATE : 26th MARCH, 2010. 1. The applicant is claiming bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the following grounds:- (a) Medical report indicates that both hands' fingers of the victim are burnt. The said fact contains in the statement recorded by the Police. (b) The victim has not signed or put her thumb impression on the statement due to burn injuries. (c) Dying Declaration recorded at 12.50 p.m. in the midnight by the Executive Magistrate shows the signature of the victim. 2 3. According to the applicant he is innocent and is not involved in commission of offence. 4. The question as to whether in spite of injuries, the victim was in a position to put her signature though her thumb impression could not be taken is the matter to be dealt with in the course of investigation and trial. 5. At this stage, this Court has arrive at a conclusion as to involvement of the accused in the light of the version contained in the Dying Declaration. Moreover, the Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate at this stage undoubtedly carries much weight- age. This Dying Declaration is amplified and supported by a statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. By all these, the applicant has been involved in the said crime. Her name has been taken as one of the accused who has poured kerosene on the person of victim. 6. Therefore, at this stage, it is not possible to conclude that the accused is not involved in the commission of offence. 7. On the basis of certain documents, the applicant has attempted to dispute her identity claiming that she is not one who is named as accused. 8. The question of dispute as to identity now now tried to exhibit before this Court is a matter to be 3 agitated by way of defence and is not a ground adequate for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Prima facie, the accused who is shown involved in the offence dose not deserve for bail. 10. In this background, the application has no merit and is rejected. Judge //mule//