1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2010 Sanjay Ramrao Kolge, Age-31 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Gadiwat, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.125/2009, registered in Chikalthana Police Station, Aurangabad for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 498-A r/w.34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the 2 complaint of one Sushila Ramesh which incident according to her occurred in the afternoon of 26/11/2009, wherein she has stated that when she was alone in the house, the applicant came their, and her quarrel took place with him. During the quarrel, the applicant poured kerosene from the can on her person and set her on fire. On hearing her shouts, her sons came there alongwith the workers who were working on the brick kiln and extinguished the fire and admitted her in the hospital. On the basis of said complaint, applicant came to be arrested on 27/11/2009 and since then is in custody. 4. During the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the statement of the witnesses recorded including the son of the victim Walmik, who was present in the house at the time of incident, do not support the disclosure statement by way of dying declaration, on the basis of which complaint came to be lodged and the offence came to be registered. On the contrary, the narration given by the eye witnesses speak something otherwise. The Statement of other witnesses who immediately rushed to the spot also speaks something otherwise and they do not whisper about the presence of present applicant at all. 5. Learned APP in routine course opposed the bail application. Perusal of the statement of eye witnesses, the son of the victim, as well as the 2 other eye witnesses do not support the disclosure of facts in the dying declaration by victim Sushila. Also the statement 3 made by the son of victim Walmik is supported by the panchnama of place of offence where the traces of partly eaten food was found, where the incident occurred. If it is so, then as the statement made in the dying declaration is not supported by the circumstances as well as by the statement of the eye witnesses, case is made out even though at this stage when the investigation is still in progress to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. In the premise, application deserves following order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant to co-operate and to give attendance to Chikalthana Police Station as and when required by the Investigation Officer concerned who is investigating the Crime No. 125/2009. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.33-10