1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.865 OF 2010 Mangalbai w/o Dattu Redekar & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicants Mrs. Vaishali More, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 17th March, 2010 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicants have preferred the present application requesting to enlarge them on bail in connection with the C.R. No.170/2009, registered with Ashti Police Station, District Beed, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 506 of the 2 Indian Penal Code. 3. It is alleged that, the marriage between the deceased Rani and the accused No.1 Dadasaheb Redekar took place about 1 1/2 year prior to occurrence of the incident i.e. 24.11.2009 and there are allegations of cruelty, ill-treatment and harassment to which the victim Rani was subjected to for the unlawful demand of Rs.1 Lakh for the purpose of land, at the hands of her husband as well as applicant Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim Rani respectively. 4. The accusations against the applicants No.1 and 2 herein are that, on the date of the incident, i.e. on 24.11.2009 at about 2.00 p.m., the applicants herein confined their son i.e. husband of the victim Rani namely Dadasaheb Redekar in one room and the applicant No.1 poured kerosene on the person of the victim Rani and applicant No.2 set her ablaze by lighting match stick in another room and thereupon the victim Rani shouted and ran out of the said room and jumped into the water tank in the courtyard of the house. The F.I.R. came to be lodged 3 on 25.11.2009 at about 9.00 p.m. and applicants came to be arrested on 1.12.2009 under the aforesaid C.R. and subsequently the victim Rani expired on 12.12.2009 while she was under the medical treatment. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant urged that the F.I.R. was lodged after the period of 36 hours from the occurrence of the alleged incident and the said aspect itself creates suspicion about the same. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and, therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicants in custody further more. 6. The learned A.P.P. countered the said arguments and submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased Rani recorded by Executive Magistrate on 25.11.2009 involves the applicants in the crime. It is further submitted that the said dying declaration categorically discloses the overt act of the applicants No.1 and 2 in commission of the offence. Hence, learned A.P.P. submitted that there is strong prima facie case against the applicants and, therefore, they are not entitled to be 4 enlarged on bail. 7. Considering the rival submissions and also on perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that, the dying declaration of the victim was recorded by Executive Magistrate on 25.11.2009 at about 11.30 a.m. and on perusal of the contents thereof, it is apparent that the said dying declaration connects the applicants No.1 and 2 herein with the crime. It also appears that the overt act of applicants No.1 and 2 in the commission of the crime has been specifically mentioned in the said dying declaration. Moreover, apparently, the spot panchanama is also in consonance with the said dying declaration. 8. As regards the 36 hours delay in lodging the F.I.R., it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that the victim was not in condition to give her statement and, therefore, the said delay is caused. The aspect of said delay can be dealt with aptly at the time of trial and the said alleged delay in lodging the F.I.R. apparently cannot be in favour of the applicant at this stage, since the dying declaration implicitly connects the applicant with the crime. 5 9. In the circumstances, apparently prima facie there is incriminating evidence against the applicants and, therefore, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicants on bail and completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet against them cannot be the ground for their enlargement on bail considering the peculiar facts in the present case.. 10. In the result, present bail application, being sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri865.10