1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No.173/2011 ( Shantaram S/o Suresh Pandhare & another ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S. Hiwarkhed, Tah. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.M. Rizwy, Adv. for applicants. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.P.P. for respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI J. Reserved on : 7/6/2011. Pronounced on : 9/6/2011. 1. Applicant nos.1 and 2, who are the accused in Crime No.26/2011, registered at the Police Station Hiwarkhed, Distt. Buldhana, under section 307, 498-A, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have moved this Court under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure code for pre-arrest bail. 2. On the basis of F.I.R., lodged by Smt. Shobha Shantaram Pandhre, the wife of the accused no.1, (applicant no.1 herein), the aforesaid offence came to be registered. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the prosecutrix after getting married with the accused no.1 started residing with him in village Lakhanwada, Distt. Buldhana. Mother in law – accused no.2 (applicant no.2 herein) was also residing with them. It is her case that the accused started demanding ornaments or in alternative was asking her to bring money from her mother to repay the loan which he had incurred. He used to make demand of Rs.20,000/-. Both the accused used 2 to threaten her that if the demand is not met, they would kill her. Accused persons also used to say that they would prefer to go to jail by killing her. She had complained to her parents. With a hope that everything would be set right in the course of time, she pulled on. On 2/4/2011 at 12 noon her husband returned to home. At that time, her mother in law/accused no.2 started alleging that prosecutrix had committed theft of her saree. Thereafter, her husband/accused no.1 caught hold of her hands and the accused no.2 poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire. They both went out of the house. The prosecutrix dipped herself in the water tub and extinguished fire. Hearing her screams, neighbours gathered. Both the accused told the neighbours not to bring any doctor in their house. Therefore, she went to one doctor Chavan. After first aid, she was asked to go to Khamgaon for further treatment. Then she was reached to Khamgaon in a jeep. 3. Besides, recording her statement by the police, her statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 8/4/2011 at about 11.40 a.m. She reiterated the same story. The evidence collected by the prosecution prima facie revealed that both the accused are involved in the commission of offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage, the possibility of prosecutrix making false allegations of such nature is ruled out. The accused no.1 is a Teacher by profession. No married lady could like to disrupt her marital life on any flimsy ground, particularly, when she has children aged about 3 years and 5 years. 4. Mr. A.M. Rizwy, learned counsel for the applicants, contended that only 20 per cent burns were sustained by the prosecutrix. She was discharged on 16/4/2011. This falsifies the case of the prosecutrix that the kerosene was poured on her person. According to him, had it been so, she would have sustained extensive burns all over her body. In my view this 3 logic cannot be applied at this stage. It is pertinent to note that after she was set on fire, she rushed outside and dipped herself in water tub, and saved herself from the extensive burns. Secondly, there is nothing to point out that she was tutored or instigated to level false allegations against her husband and mother in law. 5. Mr. Rizwy, learned counsel for the applicants, further contended that, investigation having been practically completed, custodial interrogation is not needed. He, therefore, submitted that this is a fit case to exercise discretion under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Principles which are followed while granting anticipatory bail are well settled. In a case of given nature where the housewife was set on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her person, the discretion of issuing directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be exercised. Reference can usefully be made to the decision in case of Pravibhai Kashirambhai Patel V/s. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 598. 6. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.