1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3482 /2009 (Bhika Narayan Rajput (Patil) vs. vs. State of Maharashtra) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A A Naik Adv.for appellant Mr A S Fulzele, Adv.for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 6, 2010. Heard. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 13/2009 reported against him for offence punishable under sections 302, 304, 498A, 338 read with section 34 of the IPC. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the alleged victim sustained burn injuries and died as a result thereof. Regarding cause of of burn injuries, learned Advocate for the applicant wants to make a reference to the statement of one Yogesh Ravindra Patil, aged about seven years, a student, who is the grandson of the applicant and son of the deceased victim. According to learned Advocate, the statement which was recorded on 28.3.2009 during the course of investigation, revealed that the alleged victim had poured rockel upon herself and thereafter sustained burn injuries as the hearth was lighted inside the house. The said statement which 2 exonerated prima facie the applicant was ignored by the trial Court while considering plea for bail. 2. Learned APP, on the other hand, stoutly opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the victim had made dying declaration on the very day of the incident while she was receiving medical treatment. The Executive Magistrate, by name, Shri Lokhande, after the Medical Officer declared the patient to be fit to give statement, recorded her statement, in which she implicated the applicant on the ground that he had poured kerosene from the can on the body of the victim and since the hearth in the house was already lighted, clothes of the victim caught fire. In the result, she had sustained burn injuries. She had ran outside the house in whereas neighbour also suffered burn injuries when she came in contact with her and fell on her body. It is also submitted that apart from the dying declaration, the I.O. (PSI) had also recorded statements of the victim which implicated the applicant ( father-in-law of the victim) in the alleged murder. Further, according to learned APP even if the statement of minor boy Yogesh is considered at this stage, considering that he was in custody of the applicant after the incident till his statement was recorded on 28.3.2009, it would be of no consequence, considering it in juxtaposition with the dying declaration; as also statement recorded by the I.O. which is also in the nature of dying declaration. The victim met untimely demise on 28.3.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. The 3 post-mortem indicates cause of death as “Cardio respiratory failure due to 90 % burns” It is also brought to my notice that grand daughter of the present applicant and daughter of the victim Snehal Ravindra Patil who had sustained burn injuries in the same incident as she came in contact with the victim whose clothes had caught fire, also died due to hypovopaemic shock as a result, 84 % of superficial and deep burns. Thus, prima facie, at this stage it cannot be said that the applicant had no role in the crime which, no doubt, is of serious nature, for offence punishable u/s 302 304, etc. IPC. 3. Under these circumstances, considering that Yogesh Ravindra Patil, who is of an impressional age, would be an important witness to bring out the truth before the trial Court; his evidence shall not be tampered in any manner. The applicant if released on bail, in all probability, may tamper with the evidence of minor witness. Hence I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. However considering the age of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the Sessions case and to dispose of the trial as early as possible. Criminal Application stands rejected. JUDGE sahare