1 CRI.APPLN.NO.4953/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 28. CRI.APPLN/4953/2010 (RAMRAO DAGDUJI MADANE V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. G.P.Shinde, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 10.1.2011 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicants extensively. The accused (husband) in custody from 18.3.2010 whereas chargesheet is filed on 15.6.2010, has urged to release him on bail. 2. The Counsel submits, the accused cannot be instrumental in setting the wife ablaze as he himself carried her to the hospital. When he two witnesses who immediately rushed to the room, broke open the lock, the accused/applicant cannot be said to be author of events in which precious life is lost. 2 CRI.APPLN.NO.4953/2010 3. Learned Counsel also criticized the manner of recording dying declaration since the hands of the victim, the deceased, were burnt, there could not be her thumb impression on the dying declaration dt.16.3.2010. Learned Counsel submits that it is a false implication of the accused/applicant. 4. The dying declaration of the wife dt.16.3.2010 in unmistakable terms narrate the account of the events which also referred/pointed illicit relations of the accused/applicant with his close relations and threat exerted by the accused/applicant to the wife in the past. On the date of the incident dt.13.3.2010, the wife submits that the accused doused kerosene on her person, set her ablaze and shut the door and ran away. She, in such a condition, yelled and, consequently Pundlik Madne and others from the village extinguished the fire and she was taken to the hospital by these two persons and then only her parents came. It is though informed that her husband had admitted her in the 3 CRI.APPLN.NO.4953/2010 hospital, however, it is not so reflected. The dying declaration though doubted, this is not a stage to have a roving inquiry for the same. Though the chargesheet is filed, the manner in which heinous offense has taken place, display the fortitude the accused had to eliminate his wife. Consequently, no case for grant of bail in such circumstances. Application rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/4953-10crapl