1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2627 OF 2010 Shri Arjun @ Lahanu Babasaheb Bade age 25 years, occ. labourer r/o Ganeshnagar, Tq. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar. Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. V.A. Shinde A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 18 th August, 2010. P.C.: 1 By the present application applicant is seeking his release on bail in connection with Crime No. 28/2010 registered with Rahata Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar in which applicant came to be arrested on 3 rd March, 2010. In the said crime, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 10 th March, 2010 in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahata. After completing formalities, trial was committed to the court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case no. 17/2010. Alleged offence 2 against the applicant is under sections 307, 498A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim / complainant in the said offence is the wife of the applicant. 2 Heard Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. V.A. Shinde, learned APP for the State. Perused the papers of investigation. It cannot be disputed that the injuries sustained to the victim are burn injuries. Complaint discloses that applicant is the husband of complainant and he used to dislike the wife, complainant. In the night of 9 th March, 2010, under the influence of liquor, applicant poured kerosene on the person of complainant and set her on fire. When clothes on the person of the complainant caught fire, she made hue and cry. Thereafter her inlaws and other relatives admitted her in hospital. On the basis of statement of the complainant crime came to be registered. 3 Applicant claims bail on the ground that his brother was released on bail. Perusal of papers of investigation show no participation of the brother of the applicant in the alleged incident. Hence, application cannot claim parity to release him on bail on the ground that his brother was released on bail. According to learned counsel for the applicant, MLC papers are at 3 present silent about on whose instructions the history of burn injury was recorded in the MLC papers where complainant was treated. The fact remains that at the time of alleged incident, only the complainant and applicant were present in the premises where the alleged incident occurred. Considering this aspect, burden lies on the applicant under section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain about how the complainant sustained burn injuries for which no proper explanation is coming before the court. Spot panchanama indicates bottle containing kerosene and the match stick found at the place where incident occurred which support the statement made by the complainant. The way and the manner in which the incident occurred, if the applicant is released on bail, life of the complainant is not safe. Application sans merit. Hence, application is rejected. ( A.V.POTDAR ) JUDGE dyb/criappln2627.10.odt