1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 541 of 2008 Sandeep Ananda Sathe & ors. .. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ... Mr.Sandesh Patil i/b P.P. Jadhav for the applicant. Mr.Rajesh More APP for the State. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 4th March 2008 P.C.: 1. By this application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Application, the applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with the Crime No.14 of 2008 registered with Shahuwadi police station in respect of the offences punishable under section 498A, 306 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicant no.1 is the husband of Seema Sandeep Sathe - the deceased. Applicant nos.2 to 5 2 are father, mother and sisters of the applicant no.1. 3. Learned APP does not seriously oppose the application at the instance of applicant nos.2 to 5. He however submits that anticipatory bail should not be granted to the applicant no.1 - the husband of the deceased as his custody is required for investigation. 4. The deceased was burnt alive on 11th January 2008. In the dying declaration she stated that she died on account of an accidental fire caused by the fall of the kerosene lamp while she was climbing the staircase. Strongly placing the reliance on this dying declaration, counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no case for rejecting the bail as victim herself in her dying declaration has exonerated the applicant no.1. The learned APP however pointed out that the dying declaration was not recorded before the Magistrate. It was recorded by a police constable in a hurry in the presence of the husband and all other relatives. As the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of the husband, the deceased was under pressure and out of the natural tendency to save the husband with whom she would be required to co-habit in future, she did not specifically name the husband. He also pointed 3 the statements of the father and other relatives of the deceased. They have clearly stated that the applicant no.1 was demanding sum of Rs.10,000/- from them for the purpose of securing an employment for him. Earlier the applicant demanded Rs.25,000/- for redeeming the pawned gold ornaments given at the time of marriage. The deceased was thus harassed by demand of money. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the investigation is in progress and also taking into consideration the fact that there was a previous demand of dowry and/or money by the applicant no.1 on occasions more than one, in my view, it would not be appropriate to grant bail at this stage pending investigation. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R 6. Application for bail of applicant no.1 is rejected. 7. Applicant nos.2 to 5 however are granted pre-arrest bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each. In the event of applicant nos.2 to 5 or any of them is arrested, each of them shall be released on bail on his/her executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with 4 one surety of the like amount. . This order shall come to an end after the charge sheet is filed whereupon the applicants, may, if they so desire, apply to the court for regular bail. If such an application is made, the Court shall consider on its own merits without being in any way influenced by any of the observations made herein. (D.G. KARNIK, J)