1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4034 OF 2009 Tanaku S/o.Daulat Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.R.D.Mane, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 27/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with CR No.78/2009 registered in Chopda City Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 498-A r/w. 34 of IPC and also u/s. 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for applicant accused followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Also perused the papers of investigation as charge-sheet is already filed in connection with this offence. It is urged across the bar that the alleged incident occurred on 07/08/2009 around 6.00 a.m. at the residential place of deceased and the complaint came to be lodged by 2 the father of the deceased on 07/08/2009, at around 2.30 p.m. on the same day. The relief of bail is claimed mainly on two grounds. 1) That the incident took place at village Rampur, Tal.Chopda while this present applicant is not resident of said place and is residing at Ghumawal (kd.) and which is at the distance of about 50 Kms., and claimed that he was not present at the time of alleged incident and thus according to him, he is falsely implicated in the present case, and 2) according to the counsel for applicant, after the incident occurred at about 6.00 a.m., dying declaration of deceased was recorded at 6.15 a.m. wherein, the deceased herself has given a statement that she sustained burn injuries due to accident and on these two grounds, the applicant claimed his release on anticipatory bail in connection with his arrest in this offence. 5. Learned APP vehemently opposed this application on the basis of incriminating material collected during the investigation against this applicant. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar, perused the papers of investigation placed in my hand. In the complaint, there is reference of 4 eye witnesses who have witnessed the incident and have informed about the incident as to how the deceased has sustained burn injuries. Statement of these 4 eye witnesses were recorded immediately on the same day of lodging of complaint. In the statement of these 4 eye witnesses, they have narrated the story that the deceased was fastened to a pole inside the room and then she 3 was set on fire. In all these statements of eye witnesses, the name of this applicant is specifically reflected. Apart from it, the dying declaration allegedly recorded at 6.15 a.m., wherein it is stated that while the deceased was putting a pot on fire place, she has sustained the burn injuries, but the panchanama of place of incident indicates that the incident occurred inside the house, where the partly burnt material was found and no fire place is located in the said panchnama and these facts disclosed in the panchanama of place of incident and the dying declaration, they do not tally each other. In the premise, no case made out to enlarge the accused on bail. Application sans any merit, and deserves to be dismissed. Hence order - Application stands rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.4034-09