{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3722 OF 2010 Bhagwat Laxman Kawade APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D.R.Kale, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 13th October 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is a second request of the applicant to release him on bail in connection with Crime No.102/2010 registered Gondi police Station, Tq-Ambad, Dist-Jalna. The appellant came to be arrested on 28th April 2010 for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The present application is preferred by the applicant after filing of the charge sheet. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the {2} submissions of learned APP. 4, The alleged incident occurred in the morning at about 9.30 am on 26.04.2010 and complaint about the same was lodged by Rekha, sister of the deceased on 28.04.2010. According to the complainant, she had been to the house of her sister (deceased) and on 26.04.2010 at about 09.30 a.m. when the deceased was preparing food at that time the applicant came in an inebriated condition and demanded Rs.5000/- from the deceased, which the deceased refused and, therefore, the applicant got annoyed and in a fit of anger, poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and thrashed her to the fire place and hence she caught fire. Thereafter, the complainant alleges that, she made hue and cry and hence the neighbours came there and got the deceased admitted in Ghati Hospital, where she succumbed to the burn injuries. 5. Postmortem notes clearly indicate that the deceased expired due to 96% burn injuries. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses, including minor son of the deceased, were recorded. The minor son of the deceased has corroborated the statement of the complainant. 6, Learned counsel for the applicant urged that though the incident occurred on 26th April 2010 and deceased expired on 27th April 2010 and that all the relatives of the deceased were {3} present in Ghati Hospital throughout, yet none had lodged any complaint inspite of the fact that Police Chowki is there at Ghati Hospital and thus, there is delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR. While rejecting the earlier application filed by the applicant, this Court, vide order dated 25.06.2010 passed in Criminal Application No.2187/2010, has observed that the delay of two days cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution, when dear and near ones of the deceased were busy in saving the life of the deceased. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that immediately after the admission of the deceased in Ghati Hospital, an ADR was registered at AD No.117/2010 on the basis of the statement of Bapusaheb. Said Bapusaheb has stated that the said incident occurred due to busting of stove accidentally. Statement of Bapusaheb recorded during the investigation discloses that he was not the eye witness to the incident, however he learnt from somebody, from whom he learnt is not mentioned in the statement. Apart from it, the spot Panchanama was prepared on 27th April 2010 at about 7.00 p.m. and at that time the complainant, son of the deceased and other relatives were at Ghati Hospital and hence it can safely be inferred that they had not changed the scene of offence. In the spot Panchanama there is no mention of any stove at the spot where the incident occurred. Thus, the AD report is not supported by Bapusaheb in his statement recorded during the investigation. The statements of eye witnesses clearly establish direct nexus between the act of the applicant and the death of the deceased. The offence against the applicant is punishable for an {4} offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. When there is direct evidence of eye witnesses and the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment, no case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. There being no merit in the application, the application is rejected. 7. It is however clarified that the above observations are prima facie, based on the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation and the trial judge need not be influenced with the same while disposing of the trial. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln3722-10