1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3565 OF 2009 Nilesh S/o.Ganpatrao Solunke and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.C.V.Thombre, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 04/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed for bail in connection with Crime No.64/2009 registered in Shirsala Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 304(B), 498-A r/w.34 of IPC and u/s. 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. During the course of submissions across the bar, the papers of investigation were placed in my hand for my perusal. 2 3. It is submitted across the bar that considering the statement of witnesses as alleged in the complaint against applicant no.1, the husband of the victim, the present application is not pressed so far as the applicant no.1 husband of the victim is concerned and pressed only for the relief of bail in respect of applicant no.2. 4. In the alleged case of prosecution, the marriage between applicant no.1 and victim took place in the month of February 2008. It is the allegation as made out in the complaint as well as the paper of investigation discloses that at the settlement of marriage, certain dowry was settled between the parties to the marriage, but the amount of dowry was not paid by the father of the victim i.e. the complainant to the applicants. The alleged incident took place on 06/05/2009. It is alleged in the FIR that due to the harassment on the count of dowry, the applicant no.1 poured kerosene on the person of victim and applicant no.2, the father in law of the victim is the person who set the victim on fire. During the incident, the victim sustained burned injuries and she was admitted to hospital where she was succumbed to death. 5, On Perusal of the postmortem notes, particularly the injuries on the person of the victim as disclosed in para no.17 indicates that at the time of alleged incident, the victim was not fully burnt. Considering the nature of injuries which were found on the person of the victim, it is to be safely presumed that the victim was in a position to speak with the medical officer attended to her as well as 3 the persons who were present there. It is to be worth noted that at the time of alleged incident, the victim was carrying 8 months pregnancy. If it is so, then it can not be said that at her own, she may met with an accident and sustained the burned injuries. Considering the nature of injuries, which are mentioned in the postmortem notes, it is to be safely presumed that this is not a case of accidental death, but this is a case of homicidal death and if from this angle, the contents as well as the disclosure in the FIR if to be construed, the role played by the father in law of the victim can not be ignored easily as after pouring kerosone by applicant no.1, it is the applicant no.2 who set the victim on fire which resulted in her death. Even though the offence is registered u/s. 304(B) of The IPC, this is a clear-cut case for an offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC, for which punishment of life imprisonment or capital punishment is provided. If it is so, as there is substantial evidence about the involvement of both the applicants in the crime, the application deserves following order : Application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3565-09