IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.477 OF 2008 Dwarkabai Madhav Malkar ..vs.. State =================================== CORAM : S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:28.2.2008 Heard Mr. Narnaware, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Fulzele, A.P.P. for state. Interim order was passed in favour of the applicant on 7.2.2008. Question is whether that order should be confirmed or not. Learned A.P.P. has pointed out that the witness Sham Dhavas has told the P.I. that the brother in law of the deceased Devidas Malkar had informed on mobile phone that the mother and brother i.e. husband of the deceased had poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire and then they took her to Yavatmal Hosital. On specific question that was put up, it was informed that the statement of this Devidas Malkar is not on record. Therefore, this type of statement of Sham Dhawas would be clearly hear-say. Learned A.P.P. has brought to my notice that the door of the said room was locked from outside and the applicant was absconding after the incident. It is the case of the applicant that at the relevant time she was on duty at her office which was in the vicinity. In these circumstances, it is difficult to positively say that the applicant was responsible for the death of the deceased along with her son i.e. husband of the deceased. The fact that the applicant was absconding by itself cannot invite the refusal of anticipatory bail, particularly when she is government servant and no specific role in the incident can be positively attributed to her, except that of ill-treatment. In these circumstances, the applicant can not be refused anticipatory bail, however, it will be subject to condition as in the interim order. Same is confirmed as under: In the event of arrest of the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 498-A, 304-A r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No.262/2007 of P.S. Pusad, she be released on bail o furnishing surety and PRB of Rs.15000/- subject to conditions that she shall report P.S. Pusad as and when directed by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation in writing and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matte and they shall not influence learned trial Judge in any way while deciding the matter on merit. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE smp.