( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3380 OF 2010 Ravindra s/o Vasant Patil, R/o Mamalde, Tq. Chopda, District Jalgaon. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Police Inspector, Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENT .... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicant is husband of deceased Manisha. The applicant is arrested for alleged offences punishable under section 498-A and 302 read with section 109 of the I.P. Code. It is alleged that he was demanding gold ornaments of deceased Manisha for purchasing a two-wheeler. She was not ready to ( 2 ) give her stridhan (ornaments). There was quarrel between the spouses on such account before about a week. She gave a dying declaration to the effect that on 27-11-2009 at about 8 a.m., the applicant again demanded the gold ornaments. She declined to give her ornaments to him. The applicant then abused her, gave blows of stick and suspected her fidelity. He was beating her in fit of anger. He picked up a kerosene canister, sprinkled kerosene on her person and set her ablaze by means of a burning matchstick. She was engulfed by flames of fire. She immediately rushed to a water-tank situated by side of the house and plunged herself in the water-tank to get the fire extinguished. The applicant allegedly fled away from the house. She narrated further that she was rushed to the hospital by the neighbours and one Balasaheb Patil. She further narrated that the applicant used to trouble and ill- treat her at the instigation of her sister-in-law by name Smt. Vijubai. 3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. The chargesheet is filed after due investigation. 4. It is pertinent to notice that the applicant's son ( 3 ) by name Deepak aged about five (5) and half (1/2) years was present in the house at the relevant time. 5. True, at the time of consideration of the bail application, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be scrutinized to find out whether the story is credible or not and evaluation of such evidence is impermissible. At the same time, prima facie, consideration of such evidence is necessary in order to find out whether the applicant deserves liberty during the period of trial. The police recorded statement of one Vishwas Patil who is residing in the neighbourhood of the applicant. His police statement prima facie shows that the applicant used to work on daily wages as a driver of tractor vehicle. His statement purports to show that about 3/4 days prior to the incident, he noticed that Deepak was crying. He, therefore, visited house of the applicant. He then noticed that Manisha was sitting in the house and kerosene was poured on her person. He further noticed that she was holding a matchbox in her hand. he snatched away the matchbox from her. He narrated to the police that deceased Manisha was hot- tempered and did not like the applicant because he used to stay at home without doing any work. In other words, the statement of the neighbour purports to show that the applicant ( 4 ) was not liked by deceased Manisha for the reason that he used to sit idle in the home. It also appears that she was ill- tempered and had indulged in the act of tantrums by making an attempt to show that she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself. The bid was foiled by Vishwas Patil in the relevant morning prior to the incident. This is one circumstance which prima facie shows that Manisha was likely to commit self-immolation in fit of anger. 6. Coming to her dying declaration, it appears that she narrated to the Executive Magistrate that her husband set fire to her person and fled away from the house. This part of her dying declaration prima facie is inconsistent with the statements of various neighbours including Smt. Latabai Patil, Smt. Anitabai Patil, Mahindra Patil, etc. Their versions show that the applicant was present in his house at the relevant time. The police statement of Lotan Gorakh Patil prima facie shows that the applicant attempted to extinguish the fire when his wife was in burning condition in the bath-room. He had attempted to pour water on her person but because she was extensively burning, it was not possible to extinguish the fire and, therefore, he and other neighbours instructed Manisha to go in a water-tank of adjoining house of Anil ( 5 ) Patil. Thereafter, she rushed to that water-tank and dropped herself in the same. In other words, there is prima facie evidence to show that the applicant attempted to assist the deceased while she was burning, in order to extinguish the fire. The police statement of Deepak, the minor son of the applicant also appears to be rather inconsistent with the dying declaration and other statements. He narrated before the police that on one day, he noticed that there was quarrel between the applicant and deceased Manisha and thereafter the applicant poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze and immediately went away from the house. The statements of neighbours, however, show that the applicant had made attempt to assist the wife in order to extinguish the fire. One cannot ignore possibility of tutoring of the minor witness by the relatives. 7. Having regard to the discrepancies discussed hereinabove, the applicant deserves liberty, as his detention is no more required for effective investigation and that probability of his not being author of the incident wherein his wife received burn injuries, cannot be completely ruled out at this juncture. Still, however, it is necessary to impose stringent conditions in order to ensure fair trial. ( 6 ) 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) with one solvent surety bond in the like sum before the learned Sessions Judge and on furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he will not enter the limits of Chopda taluka during the period of trial and shall make himself available as and when required. He shall furnish his address where he would reside during the period of trial, alongwith the details of his contact number, etc., so as to ensure his presence during the course of the trial, if so required by the Court/Police. He shall not contact his minor sons or any of the relatives and the witnesses during course of the trial and shall make no attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The trial of the sessions case shall be expedited. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3380-10 ( 7 )