( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3492 OF 2010 Sugriv s/o Asaram Kale, R/o Manubai Jawala, Tq. Georai, District Beed. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Talwada, Taluka Georai, District Beed. RESPONDENT .... Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail. 2. The applicant is chargesheeted for offences, punishable under section 302, 498-A, 323, 504 read with ( 2 ) section 34 of the I.P. Code. 3. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 4. The incident giving rise to burning of deceased Leelavati did occur on 20th April, 2010 at about 4.00/4.30 a.m. She died of septicemic shock as a result of 48% burn injuries sustained by her. 5. Perusal of the investigation papers prima facie shows that the applicant and deceased Leelavati always used to indulge in quarrels amongst themselves. She was his second wife. She did not conceive any child. It appears that the first statement recorded by the police, immediately after the incident, purports to show that in the wee hours, a burning oil lamp had fallen on the backside of the injured Smt. Leelavati and, therefore, her saree was caught by fire. She narrated to the police that she raised hue and cry and thereafter, the applicant got up and poured water on her person so as to extinguish the fire. He thereafter took her to the hospital. This statement was recorded at 11.30 a.m. It appears, however, that on the same day, at 1.30 p.m., her ( 3 ) second dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, in which she asserted that the applicant had poured kerosene on her person and had set fire to her saree in the early hours of the morning. The third dying declaration is also on the same lines. She died on 16th May, 2010 in the early hours. The post-mortem notes prima facie show that the deceased had received burns on the backside, right lower extremity and left lower extremity, to the extent of 16% each. The post-mortem notes show that the death was due to the septicemia caused as a result of 48% superficial deep burns. In other words, septicemia had developed after she was admitted in the hospital. 6. The conduct of the applicant deserves to be noted. He had taken her to the hospital by engaging an auto-rickshaw. There is a statement of Rahibai, who resides in the neighbourhood and is related to the applicant being his sister-in-law. Her police statement shows that the applicant and deceased Leelavati were residing together since about eight (8) years and they were not pulling on well with each other. She narrated to the police that the applicant and Leelavati used to beat each other during course of the quarrels. They used to abuse each other and moreover, they ( 4 ) were not amenable to any word of advice and, therefore, she or her relatives were not making any attempt to talk to them so as to intervene in the quarrels. Her police statement shows that in the night between 19th and 20th April, 2010, at about mid-night, somewhere around 12.00/1.00 a.m., she heard hue and cry. She noticed that Leelavati was sitting in the Varandah of the house and had received burn injuries. She further noticed that Leelavati was telling the applicant that she would put him in jail and will see him. She narrated to the police that applicant was asking Leelavati to put on saree and accompany him to the hospital. Thereafter, she had put on another saree and both of them went to the hospital in the morning time and the applicant had fetched an auto-rickshaw. This statement of Rahibai prima facie shows that the incident occurred somewhere in the midnight and not in the wee hours i.e. at 4 a.m. The statement of PW Rahibai further shows that injured Leelavati was threatening the applicant that he would be put in the jail. This conduct of injured Leelavati goes to show that she had determined to do something so as to enusre that the applicant was behind the bars. So, it appears that between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m., injured Leelavati was sitting outside in the varandah and was threatening the applicant whereas he was making an attempt to take her to the hospital ( 5 ) after asking her to put on another saree. These are tale- telling circumstances. 7. Considering the first dying declaration of Leelavati which speaks about the accidental burns received by her and the statement of Rahibai, it appears that the subsequent dying declarations of Leelavati could be due to her determination to put the applicant behind the bars. Under these circumstances, the applicant deserves liberty on certain conditions. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) with one solvent surety bond in the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions and on furnishing a written undertaking before the Court of Sessions, simultaneously to the effect that he will not enter the limits of Taluka Georai during the period of the trial of the sessions case, except for the reason of attending the Court during trial. He will not make any attempt to contact the prosecution witnesses or to tamper with the evidence of prosecution and will not make attempt to protract the trial. The trial of the sessions case is expedited. ( 6 ) 9. The observations made in this order shall be overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding the sessions case on merits. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3492-2010