1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.934 of 2010 [Shaikh Sattar son of Shaikh Usman & ors. Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.P. Joshi with Mr. S.M. Dubewar, Advs., for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent. ---- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 29th June, 2010. 1. This is an application for regular bail. 2. Crime No. 7/2010 for Offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the applicants with Andhera Police Station, Distt. Buldana. 3. All applicants have been named in the First Information Report. 4. The First Information Report is based on the Dying Declaration. 2 5. In the Dying Declaration deceased has named two persons who came on the scene of offence and assisted in extinguishing the fire. These persons are, namely [1] Shahnaj Parveen Sk. Mukhtyar, and [2] Shakilabi. 6. Perusal of case diary, statements of two witnesses named in the Dying Declaration and Spot Panchanama reveal the following:- [a] Applicant Nos. 4 and 5 had held the deceased Shahista Parveen and applicant no.2 poured kerosene, while applicant no.1 set fire. [b] Witnesses Shahnaj Parveen Sk. Mukhtyar and Shakilabi, who had come on the spot due to the call, have stated that Applicant No.1 – Sheikh Sattar himself called an auto- rickshaw for taking Shahista Parveen to the hospital. 7. It is pleaded on behalf of the applicants that applicant nos. 1 and 2 being the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, though named as having set Shahista Parveen on fire, they have tried to extinguish the fire and even took Shahista Parveen to the hospital. 8. As per the version emerging from statement of Shahista Parveen, the incident had occurred over the demand of Rs.20,000/-. 3 9. It is seen from the statements of witness – Shahnaz Parveen that Shahista Parveen told her, while on way to hospital, that:- [a] She got herself burnt. [b] Her mother-in-law and father- in-law had extinguished the fire. 10. On perusal of case diary, this Court has prima facie observed that though in the Dying Declaration, deceased names various accused persons, witnesses, who came on the spot, and particularly Shahnaz Parveen Sk. Mukhtyar, who accompanied Shahista Parveen to the hospital, has no reason to say what the deceased told to her in favour of the applicants. Statement of witness – Shahnaj Parveen appears to be natural about disclosure made to her by Shahista Parveen, the deceased. 11. Considering the fact that at this stage the versions of witnesses are not coherent as to involvement of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, and exact role of applicant no.5 who is a student, these three applicants out of five applicants may not be involved in the commission of offence. They are, therefore, entitled to be released on bail. 12. The applicant no.1 - Shaikh Sattar son of Shaikh Usman, Applicant No.2 – Nazirabi wife of Shaikh Sattar, and applicant No.5 – Shaikh 4 Irfan son of Shaikh Sattar be released on bail on furnishing a Personal Bond and a Solvent Surety in a sum of Rs.10,000-00 [rupees ten thousand only] each. Judge |Hedau|