( 1 ) cra4770.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4770 OF 2010 1. Hasan s/o. Sardar Shaikh (Patel) .. Applicants Age. 24 years, Occ. Business. 2. Hajrabai w/o. Sardar Shaikh (Patel) Age. 48 years, Occ. Household work, Both r/o. Javkhed Khalsa, Tq. Pathardi, District – Ahmednagar. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 10.12.2010 P.C. :- 1. By this application, the applicants are seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 293 of 2010, registered against them, for offences punishable under ( 2 ) cra4770.10 Sections 498-A, 302, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Applicant No.1 is husband and applicant No.2 is mother-in-law of deceased Mubina. She was young woman aged about 22 years. The offence is registered on basis of her dying declaration. In her dying declaration she alleged that she was being ill-treated, harassed and troubled by the husband and his relatives. They used to quarrel with her. On 30th July, 2010, the mother-in-law quarreled with her and a couple of days letter on, she demanded Rs. 20,000/- and asked her to bring the amount from her parents. While the mother- in-law was quarreling with her, she went in a room. Applicant No.1 (husband) followed her. Applicant No.2 (mother-in-law) picked up a kerosene canister and poured kerosene on her person. Her mother-in-law asked the husband i.e. applicant No.1 to set Mubina on fire. It is stated in the F.I.R. that after her clothes had caught fire, both applicants went out of the house and subsequently her husband returned and he extinguished the fire. ( 3 ) cra4770.10 3. Upon hearing learned advocate, learned A.P.P. and perusal of investigation, it prima facie appears that initially deceased Mubina narrated different story. The statements of neighbours prima facie indicate that when they rushed to the house of the applicants, they noticed that Mubina was involved in the flames of fire and the husband had extinguished the fire. They also noticed that she was saying that due to blasting of stove, she was caught by fire flames. Not only that, but when she was reached to the hospital, same story was repeated by her during her first statement recorded by the Police and the history was similarly narrated to the Medical Officer. It appears that after her parents came to the hospital on next day, she changed the version and implicated the applicants as the authors of the burn injury caused to her. 4. Learned A.P.P. would submit that the involvement of the applicants is explicit from the fact that they were in the house at the relevant time and there cannot be accidental reason of the burn injuries sustained by deceased Mubina. The report of Assistant Chemical Analyzer is not on record. ( 4 ) cra4770.10 It cannot be ascertained that whether the kerosene residue was found on the burnt clothes of Mubina. The immediate disclosure before the neighbours regarding accidental cause of burns coupled with her immediate disclosure to the police of the same story, prima facie go to show that the applicants may not be authors of the alleged burn injury. Of course, if the report of the Assistant Chemical Analyser would clinch the issue regarding pouring of kerosene on her person and other material would prove their guilt, they may be found guilty as a result of the Trial. 5. At this juncture, considering the available record, I find that the applicants are entitled to seek liberty and necessary conditions may be imposed to ensure fair trial. Hence, the application is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), each with solvent surety bond in like sum to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions and on further condition that they shall not enter town and taluka of Pathardi until completion of the Trial and shall make no attempt to tamper with the evidence ( 5 ) cra4770.10 of the prosecution by influencing any of the prosecution witnesses. They shall furnish undertaking to such effect while furnishing bail bonds before the Sessions Court. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/DEC10/cra4770.10