1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1734 OF 2009 Rajesh S/o Laxman Dakh Age : 37 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Gugli Dhamangaon, Tq. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Sailu, Tq. Sailu and Dist. Parbhani (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor of High Court at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant Smt. S.B. Wadmare, APP for the respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 11th JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The applicant is seeking bail in crime no. 15 of 2009 registered with Sailu Police Station, 2 District-Parbhani. The offence alleged against the applicant, is punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] The applicant is accused of committing murder of his own wife. The incident occurred on 29.1.2009 at about 12:00 noon. It is the prosecution case that on that day, the applicant was in drunken condition since morning and he had quarrel with his wife. Soon thereafter, the wife of the applicant was found set ablaze. Neighbours gathered and extinguished the fire. They also noticed that the applicant also sustained few burn injuries. Immediately both of them were taken to hospital. At about 7:00 pm. the Police Constable from the Sailu Police Station recorded a statement of the injured wife of the applicant. The treating Doctor certified that she was in a position to give statement. In her statement, she specifically alleged that it was applicant who poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. The victim died on 4.2.2009. 3 3] The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, tried to suggest that the dying declaration is grossly exaggerated. He also pointed out that the other witnesses, who immediately rushed to the scene of offence have not supported the incident as described in the dying declaration. Indeed, since the incident took place at broad day light and since it is an admitted fact that number of persons residing in the neighbourhood came to rescue the victim, they had ample opportunity to gather information from the victim, as to what had happened inside the house and how did she catch fire. One of the witnesses, viz: Sitabai, specifically stated in her statement that immediately after the incident, she went near the victim and asked her as to what had happened. She said the victim did not say a word to her. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, thus suggested that it was probably a case of suicide and the victim falsely implicated his client. 4 4] Indeed the circumstances pointed out by the learned Advocate is worth considering; but the material that has come forth through the dying declaration is serious enough to deny bail to the applicant. 5] The application stands rejected. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/11june9/cr1734.09