1 crap3391.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3391 OF 2011 Sau. Sushilabai w/o Rambhau Charhatkar ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra& anr. ...Respondents ..... Shri M.M.Patil (Beedkar), advocate for applicant Shri B.V.Wagh, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 16th August, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking bail, in connection with C.R. No. 44 of 2011, registered at Beed Rural police station, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 34 of the Indian 2 crap3391.11 Penal Code. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of dying declaration given by the victim, namely Rekha Ganesh Charhatkar on 4.4.2011 at 10.00 p.m., alleging that the applicant herein and the co-accused subjected her to cruelty and on the relevant day i.e. on 4.4 2011, the applicant herein poured the kerosene from the kerosene can on the person of the victim and the husband of the complainant victim lit the match stick and set her ablaze. It is submitted that the victim sustained 98 per cent injuries and succumbed to the same on 6.4.2011. 4 I have perused the investigation papers and it appears that the applicant herein was arrested on 7.4.2011 and she is in custody since then till the date. It also appears that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed on 1.6.2011. 5 Apparently, two dying declarations of the victim were recorded. The first dying declaration was recorded on 4.4.2011 3 crap3391.11 at 1955 hours and second one was recorded on 4.4.2011 at 10.00 p.m. The first dying declaration indicates that the victim Rekha committed suicide since she was fed up with the cruelty meted out to her by the applicant and her husband; whereas the second dying declaration raises finger against the applicant and the co-accused i.e. the husband of the complainant, as mentioned herein above, and same was treated as the first information report. 6 In the said context, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the marriage of the victim took place on 12.7.2008 and she met with the death on 4.4.2011 i.e. within the the span of hardly three years from the marriage and the death of the victim is the custodial death. It is also canvassed that there was smell of kerosene to the shirt of the husband of victim, namely Ganesh and sari of the applicant, which prima facie indicate the involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime 7 Considering the rival submissions, since the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been 4 crap3391.11 filed and since the applicant is in custody for last about more than four months and since apparently, there is no eye witness to the occurrence of the incident and since there are two contrary dying declarations, as mentioned herein above, and since the applicant is a woman, present application deserves to be allowed. 8 At this stage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since the charge sheet has been filed under R.C.C. No. 389 of 2011 and since the case is at the stage of committal, trial can be expedited and present application be rejected. 9 Shri M.M.Patil (Beedkar), learned counsel for the applicant opposed the said prayer. 10 Considering the rival submissions, it appears that although the charge sheet has been filed, the case has not been committed to the court of Sessions so far, and therefore, even though the trial is expedited, it may consume reasonable time and since the applicant herein is woman, she deserves to be 5 crap3391.11 enlarged on bail. 11 In the result, present application is allowed and the applicant Sau. Sushilabai Rambhau Charhatkar be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, in connection with C.R. No. 44 of 2011, registered at Beed Rural police station, District Beed, with directions that the applicant shall give attendance before the investigator as and when required and shall cooperate in the investigation; and shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner, directly or indirectly, and present application stands disposed of accordingly. 12 The above observations are prima facie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3391.11