IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1023 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1023 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1023 OF 2008 Farooque Hussain Shaikh ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Hidayat with Mubin Solkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr S. R. Shinde, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 11.4.2008. DATED: 11.4.2008. DATED: 11.4.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and the material available on record. 3. The applicant-original accused arrested in C. R. No. 441 of 2007, registered with Kapurbawdi Police Station Mumbai for the offence under Section 498-A, 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The factual matrix drawn in the order dated 21.2.2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, reads as under:- "As per the police case the victim and the applicant-accused are husband and wife. They were cohabiting together at Tulsidham, Dharamveer nagar along with their two children. The applicant had grudge against the victim Sau. Shakira as she had compelled him to reside separately from his parents. Prior to 15-20 days of the incident, he had beaten the complainant Sau. Shakira when she had asked him about the clothes of the children he gave to his parents, though it was purchased by her parents. On 10.11.2007, at about 11.00 p.m. the Applicant demanded money from her and when she refused he put kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire. She sustained burns on face, chest, abdomen and other parts of the body. She herself extinguished the fire by pouring the water from the water pot but the applicant did not try to save her and did not take her to the hospital. She was taken to the hospital on next day by her parents-in-law. The offence came to be registered and the applicant was arrested." "Heard learned Advocate Mr S. Shamim Ansaan for the applicant-accused and APP Mrs H. A. Deshmukh for the State. It is true that the other accused persons who are the parents and other relatives of applicant-husband, they are released on bail. The allegations of setting the complainant on fire are specifically against the present applicant. The victim wife herself stated this fact in the complaint. The medical certificate is also on record showing burns on lower nose, upper and lower lip, chin and lower neck, chest and external region, abdomen, right forearm, left arm and wrist. Approximately, there are 6% of superficial burns. These are very serious allegations against her husband by the complainant. Moreover, the alleged conduct of the applicant is very objectionable. He did not take her to the hospital or did not extinguish the fire. Considering these facts, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail..." 5. According to the prosecution, there is strong evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. Magnitude of the offence is very serious. In the circumstances, the Session Court was pleased to reject the bail application. 6. In the above view of the matter, no case is made out for grant of bail. The reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in its order dated 21.2.2008 in Bail Application No. 285 of 2008 hold good. 7. In the result, the present application stands rejected. 8. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)