1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4082 OF 2010 Dr.Nitin s/o Baburao Patil .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra, through In charge Police Station Officer, CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad .. Respondent Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.H.Borade, A.P.P. for respondent-State Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate allowed to assist the learned A.P.P. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 28th October, 2010 PER COURT 1. This is an application filed by the applicant, who is accused in Crime No.180/2010 registered by the CIDCO Police Station, District Aurangabad for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B, 504, 506 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Wife of the present applicant named Dr.Suchita set herself ablaze on 1.5.2010 at about 9.45 p.m. Statement of Suchita came to be recorded immediately on 2.5.2010 by the Constable at 1.30 a.m. In the said statement recorded at 1.30 a.m., Suchita had stated that she had accidentally sustained the burns. Another statement of Suchita came to be recorded on the same day at 11.30 a.m. by the Executive Magistrate. 2 Suchita is also alleged to have stated that she had sustained the burns accidentally. It appears that on a complaint made by the complainant i.e. father of Suchita, another statement of Suchita came to be recorded on the same day at 5.00 p.m. In the said statement Suchita had stated that she had set herself ablaze because she was fed up of the ill treatment which was given to her by the accused. According to her the accused were demanding certain amount from Suchita to be brought by Suchita from her parents for the construction of a new hospital. Another statement also was recorded on the same day between 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. by the Executive Magistrate. In the said statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Suchita had stated that she had set herself ablaze as allegations of theft had been levelled by the present applicant against her. 3. It appears that statements had been recorded during investigation, which suggest that Suchita was either coerced or influenced into making the initial two statements that she had accidentally sustained the burns. Suchita succumbed to her injuries on 9.5.2010 and on 10.5.2010 the first information report came to be lodged. After the attempts of the applicant and the other accused at obtaining anticipatory bail turned futile, the applicant surrendered and was arrested on 1.6.2010. After obtaining the Police Custody remand the applicant is now presently in the Magisterial custody. The investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed in the month of August 2010. 3 4. Mr.Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before me that there are four dying declarations of Suchita in which Suchita claims to have sustained accidental burns in two dying declarations while in the other two dying declarations Suchita claims to have set herself ablaze on account of ill treatment and the allegations of theft being made against her. Mr.Ghanekar urges before me that there is no consistency whatsoever in the four dying declarations and, therefore, the applicant would be entitled to be released on bail. It is further urged before me that the applicant is now behind bars for practically more than four and half months and since the investigation is completed and a charge-sheet has been filed, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the applicant. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is assisted by the learned Counsel for the complainant, who has been permitted to assist the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have also heard Mr.R.S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the complainant. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations against the applicant are extremely serious and the applicant is alleged to have ill treated and demand money from his wife deceased Suchita, which ultimately led Suchita to commit the suicide. It is further urged before me by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the applicants had evaded the arrest for quite some time till their applications for ancitipatory bail came to be decided. It is further urged before me that the conduct of the applicants does not entitle them to seek the relief of bail. 4 5. I have perused the dying declarations in the charge-sheet, a copy of which has been provided for my perusal. In the first two dying declarations recorded on 2.5.2010 at 1.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. by the Police Constable and the Executive Magistrate, respectively, the deceased is alleged to have sustained burns accidentally. In the third dying declaration recorded on the same day at 5.00 p.m. deceased alleges that she was ill treated and a demand for dowry was made and that drove her to commit suicide. In the fourth dying declaration recorded between 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., deceased Suchita states that she was driven to commit suicide as allegations of theft were levelled against her. At this stage I am not examining the correctness of the dying declarations. It would be a question which would fall for consideration before the trial Court as to on which dying declaration reliance would be required to be placed and which dying declarations would be required to be rejected. No doubt statements of witnesses have been recorded in which the witnesses state that Suchita was influenced into stating that she had accidentally sustained the burns. Whether the two dying declarations are result of the influence exercised by others is a matter to be decided by the trial Court. Suffice it to state that at this stage there are two dying declarations which state that Suchita had accidentally caught fire while two dying declarations state that she had committed suicide on account of the ill treatment. In any event offence punishable under Section 304-B provides for a minimum sentence of seven years which may extend to imprisonment for life. Offence punishable under Section 5 498-A prscribes the maximum sentence of three years. 6. Since the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, I see no impediment whatsoever in allowing this application and granting bail to the applicant. The apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant would tamper the prosecution evidence or would influence the prosecution witnesses can be allayed by putting the applicant to certain terms. 7. This application is accordingly allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the applicant executing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In addition, the applicant shall attend the CIDCO Police Station twice a week on each Sunday between 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and on each Thursday between 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. till conclusion of the trial. The applicant shall not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper the prosecution evidence. Application allowed accordingly. ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4082.10criappln)