{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3921 OF 2009 Dadasaheb Murlidhar Akolkar & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State Mr.D.R.Markad, Advocate assisting the APP ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2 nd December 2009 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.282/2009 registered with Pathardi police station for an offence punishable u/s 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP, who is assisted by Mr.Markad. Perused the papers of investigation. {2} 3. It appears that one Shital, daughter in law of applicant No.1 and wife of applicant No.2, had sustained burn injuries on 11.10.2009 and was admitted in the hospital by her neighbours. At that time she had disclosed that she has sustained the burn injuries due to explosion of stove. It appears that information in respect of the said incident was given to her maternal relatives on 14.10.2009, i.e. 4 days after the incident. After the brother of the victim inquired about incident and her statement, it was informed that due to pressure of the applicants and their relatives, she had given such statement initially, however, she has informed that in fact the applicant No.1 has poured kerosene on her person and thereafter applicant No.2 has set her on fire by igniting match stick. The said dying declaration was recorded on 18.10.2009. It appears that on 19.10.2009, due to septicemia, due to burn injuries, the victim succumbed to death. Thereafter on the basis of said statement, the offence came to be registered against the applicants. 4. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that considering the disclosure of facts, as to how the victim sustained burn injuries, recorded on 11.10.2009, it is a clear case of accident and not a case of homicidal death. It is also tried to be urged that after this statement came to be recorded, Panchanama of the place of incident was drawn, however till that time, the place was not preserved. It is also urged that the statements of the persons, who {3} carried the victim to the hospital, are also recorded to whom the victim has disclosed the facts, which she had disclosed in her statement dated 11.10.2009 and considering the said disclosure, which is corroborated with the disclosure as to how the victim sustained burn injuries, it can safely be inferred that the applicants are not responsible for the said burn injuries and hence it is prayed that they may be released on bail. 5. The application is opposed by the learned APP on the ground that this is not a case of accidental death, but it is a case of bride burning. According to learned APP, the investigation is still in progress and it is not safe to release the applicants on bail at this stage. Learned APP has produced the case diary and papers of investigation for my perusal. 6. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the investigation papers, the facts, allegedly disclosed by the victim in the statement on 11.10.2009 as to how she sustained the burn injuries, require to be considered from two angles. Firstly, in her subsequent statement, the victim has stated that she has made the said statement under pressure. No doubt, similar statement is made by the victim before the persons, who carried her to the hospital, however, the investigation discloses that the said persons are close relatives of the applicants. It has further revealed that the place of incident was closed after the said incident till the subsequent statement of the victim came to be recorded. In the {4} premise, though the place of the incident was not preserved, yet as the same was closed, the same remained as it is. In the premise, it requires to be taken into consideration that whether the disclosure made by the victim on 11.10.2009 before the medical officer or police officer or to the persons who carried her to the hospital, matches with the situation at the spot. Though it was disclosed by the victim that she sustained the burn injuries due to explosion of stove, and in view of the fact that the place of incident was closed till the Panchanama was drawn, yet at the time of Panchanama no stove was found, however a can of kerosene and match box was detected. In the premise, though there is variance in the statements of the victim, yet her previous statement does not found support in the Panchanama of spot of incident. Again it has to bear in mind that the victim had sustained 60% burn injuries and she might have hope of survival and in the event of her survival, she might have thought that she would have to suffer further consequences of her statement and also in view of the fact that she was under pressure she might have made the said statement. Hence, when the persons of her confidence had arrived then it appears that she might have disclosed the correct fact. However, this is not a place to decide as to which statement of the victim is correct one. But the fact remains that yet the investigation is in progress and hence it is not safe to consider release of the applicants on bail, at least at this stage. In the premise, no case is made out to release the applicants on bail. {5} 7. In the result, the application stands rejected. 8. It is, however, clarified that these observations are prima facie observations, based on the papers of investigation and the learned Sessions Judge not to influence with the said observations while deciding the application for bail, if moved by the applicants for bail, after filing of the charge sheet. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3921-09 {6} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4191 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3921 OF 2009 Taramati w/o Haribhau Chavan APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.R.Markad, Advocate for applicant Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for the respondent State Mr.Joydeep Catterjee, Advocate for original accused ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2 nd December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant, mother of the deceased, seeks leave to allow her to assist the APP to oppose the Criminal Application No.3921/2009. Respondents have no objection to allow the present application. In the premise, application is allowed. Learned Counsel for original complainant is allowed to participate in the proceedings of Criminal Application No.3921/2009 and assist the APP. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3921-09