1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.696 OF 2010 Sham Ramchandra Rajput, and another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.S.T.shelke, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 03/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No.34/2009 registered in Rajur Police Station, of Tal. Akole. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants at length followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. 3. After trying to release on anticipatory bail, these applicants tried their luck till the Apex Court, but when not succeeded, surrendered before the Court on 02/02/2010, wherein the investigation is over and charge sheet was filed on 21/01/2010, and now they are trying their luck for regular bail. 2 4. Considering the submissions across the bar, it can not be disputed that the death of Meghna was occurred due to burn injuries on 11/10/2009, where she sustained burn injuries on 23/09/2009, at her residential premises, while she was residing with her husband and her in laws i.e. the applicants. It appears that the deceased was residing with her husband Anant Rajput at Kohane, as her husband was working in PHC Kohane. Due to some dispute, earlier case was lodged against the husband of deceased, the present applicants and others in the court of J.M.F.C. Pune, in which these applicants as well as the husband of deceased were acquitted vide judgment and order dated 06/10/2008, and within a span of a year, the alleged incident took place. So far as the allegations in relation with that complaint were of the earlier incidents and merely because in that case, these applicants were released, it can not be said that the applicants are innocent. 5. It appears that the deceased was admitted in the hospital for medical treatment, initially in PHC Kohane, then to The Civil Hospital at Ahmednagar and lastly in Dr.Sonar Intensive Care centre at Ahmednagar, but the fact remains that she survived from 23/09/2009 till 11/10/2009 and the complaint was lodged only after her demise. During this period, her dying declaration was recorded on 24/09/2009 wherein the history of accidental burn injuries was stated. It is to be noted that the panchnama of spot was carried out after near about 18 days i.e. on 14/10/2009 and at that time, the room where the incident occurred was found locked. It must be in 3 the control of either the husband of deceased or with these applicants. 6. During the submissions across the bar, much stress is given on behalf of applicants about the dying declaration recorded on 24/09/2009. At that time, the Court require to consider the psychological condition of the deceased as she had sustained 85% burn injuries. Even though it is styled in the said dying declaration that the husband of deceased was not present at the time of incident, but this statement in the dying declaration disclosed by the deceased was not corroborated or supported by the statement of neighbourers, as according to the neighbourers, at the time of alleged incident, husband of deceased was at his residential premises. Now whether there is any evidence to link these applicants with the burn injuries sustained by the deceased, whether on the count of dowry or for any other purpose, require to be considered independently. 7. While deciding the anticipatory bail application of these applicants, this Court has taken a note of statement of one Raveena, who is the only eye witness of the alleged incident. According to the statement of this Raveena, no doubt, recorded after the span of 18 days after the incident, but she can not be faulted for that as the FIR was registered after the demise of Meghna. In detail, she has narrated how the incident occurred wherein the role attributed to these applicants was not of the silent spectator, but was a role of the active participants, as the second applicant poured kerosene on the 4 person of deceased, while the husband and first applicant set Meghana on fire, which resulted in sustaining burn injuries to her. The matter did not end here, but the statement of the child witness further discloses that she was threatened by the son of these applicants that if she will disclose the true facts witnessed by her to anybody, then she has also to suffer the dire consequences like her maternal aunt has suffered. If this is the position at the investigation stage, at the hands of son of these applicants, then the picture is very clear if the applicants will release on bail, what will happen to that child witness, on whose evidence, the entire case of the prosecution stand. Even though these applicants are aged persons, but considering the role played by them during the alleged incident about causing burn injuries to Meghana, Court has to take serious view about the safety of the child witness Raveena. 8. In the premise, even though the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, it is not safe to release such applicants on bail. Application sans any merit, hence rejected. 9. Applicants are at liberty to move the learned Sessions Court, after committal order will be passed for expeditious hearing of the case. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cri.appl.696-10