1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3131/2009 ({1} Panchsheela w/o Shatrughan Maiskar & another vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr Mahesh Rai Adv. for applicants Mr Anup Parihar, APP for Respondent-State C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 14 th September, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in respect of Crime No.104/2009 registered at Pulgaon Police Station, Dist.Wardha on 5.4.2009, for offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Perused the papers. Prima facie, it appears that the accusations are serious. It further appears from the material collected during the course of investigation that the statements in the nature of dying declarations were recorded; as also statements of close relatives of the victim-Ratnabai Sunil Mhaiskar indicating that her father-in-law had held her, abusing in filthy language and uttering the words “ “; while applicant Panchsheela poured kerosene on the person of Ratnabai and ignited the matchstick. Parents of the victim had also in their statements appear to have consistently stated that father-in-law of the victim Panchsheela in furtherence of their common intention, had poured kerosene on the body of Ratnabai and ignited with matchstick. Thus, the accusations are serious. The victim has suffered as many as 50 % burns, although she survived the incident. 3. Earlier, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge- I, Wardha, had rejected the applicants’ plea for bail, in view of the dangerous nature of the act which reflected bellicose intent to kill the victim and prima facie 2 strong case against the applicants in respect of offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC. I am not inclined to take a different view of the matter considering the nature of seriousness of the accusations as also the prospects of long sentence in such cases. Moreover, if applicants are released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence, so also absconding. Therefore, Application has to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. Needless to add here that the trial Court is expected to hear the Sessions case as expeditiously as possible and decide the same on its own merit, of course, un-influenced by the observations made herein- above. JUDGE. sahare