1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3154/2009 (Shankar Kekan vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr Mahesh Rai, Adv. for applicant Mrs. Rachana Wasnik, APP for Respondent -State *** C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 30 th September,2009. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, at length. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in respect of Crime No. 127/2008 reported at Ladkhed Police Station Darwha Tq.Darwha Dist. Yavatmal for offence punishable u/s 302 read with section 34 IPC. The accusations are of serious nature. It is alleged that the applicant had set deceased Jijabai on fire on 30.11.2008. The complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased on 4.12.2008 regarding the incident which occurred on 30.11.2008. According to first informant, Jijabai had narrated to the first informant that her husband Shankar poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire with the help of his relatives (co-accused). The applicant was nabbed on the very day when FIR was lodged. Statement of various witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation indicating prima facie involvement of this applicant. Number of witnesses appears to have stated about oral dying declaration by the victim Jijabai imputing active role to the applicant that he had set her ablaze after pouring kerosene on her person. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that FIR was delayed as also statement of various witnesses; and further contended that co-accused 2 were released on bail. It also appears in the course of investigation that incriminating articles, such as, kerosene can, burnt pieces of clothes of the deceased were also recovered. Even Driver of the Auto-rickshaw in which the injured was carried to the Hospital, appears to have stated about oral dying declaration whereby the victim imputed active role to the applicant. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that deceased suffered as many as 97 per cent burns; but the Doctor did not certify about the consciousness to make dying declaration. Be that as it may, before she was carried to the hospital, number of witnesses have stated about oral dying declaration made by the victim imputing active role to the applicant that he had set her (wife) on fire after pouring kerosene on her person. The The Doctor in the post- mortem examination appears to have noted superficial deep burns present on surfaces, such as, head, neck, face, chest, right upper limb, left upper limb, back, left lower limb- totalling 97% burns ; whereas the cause of death is mentioned as “shock due to burns”. Hence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Application is rejected. It is expected that the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the sessions case as early as possible. If the trial is not completed within six months, the applicant is at liberty to move afresh for bail, before the regular Court. JUDGE. sahare