1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3956 OF 2009 Panchphulabai w/o.Uttamrao Padole, Age-50 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Jadgaon, Tq.Aundhe Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through its Investigation Officer, Police Station Aundha Nagnath, Tq.Aundhe Nagnath, Dist.Hingoli RESPONDENT Mr.R.J.Nirmal, learned counsel for the applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent/State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for her release on bail in connection with CR No.55/2009 registered in Aundha Nagnath Police Station for an offence punishable u/s.302, 498-A of IPC . 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation which were placed in my hand for my perusal. 2 3. It appears that the complaint came to be lodged on the complaint of deceased Janabai Sanjay, who sustained burn injuries on 15/06/2009 as on that day, quarrel took place between deceased and her husband and in that quarrel deceased poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. It appears that in the earlier part of the complaint, an allegation made against the applicant and the other relatives of the husband of the deceased that they were harassing the deceased on the count that she had delivered the male child, who expired within a span of 1 year and on that count there was dispute between deceased and the family members of her husband. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, my attention is drawn towards the fact about the disclosure as to how she had sustained injuries which resulted in her death. My attention is also drawn towards the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation which do not attract any role played by the applicant according to her counsel attributing that she has committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC. Apart from it, now the investigation is also over and charge sheet is also filed. 5. Learned APP opposed the application on the ground that as the applicant is an accused in the offence u/s. 302, 498-A r/w.34 of IPC, which is serious in nature. 6. Considering the disclosure of the facts by the complainant 3 herself, the injured witness stated as to how she has sustained the burn injuries for which she is treated in the hospital. No doubt, the death of the deceased is homicidal death and cause of death is due to burn injuries. Perusal of the complaint as well as the other papers of investigation clearly shows that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased and the role played by the applicant herein. In the premise, the act of applicant is not directly attracted towards the commission of offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC. In the premise, the application deserves following order - O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and on executing the PR bond in the like amount. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3956-09