{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2834 OF 2010 Govardhan s/o Vishwanath Gangawane APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. S.S.Thombre, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G.Nanedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.33/2010 registered with Pimpalner police station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 307, 498-A 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the applicant is arrested on 27th April 2010 and after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed on 23.06.2010 before CJM, Beed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. {2} 3. The applicant is brother of the father in law of the victim Savita. Admittedly, marriage of Savita and Mahadeo was performed prior to two years of the alleged incident. The alleged incident occurred in the early hours of 25th April 2010 at about 3.30 a.m. There are allegations in the complaint against the husband and in laws of the deceased that they have poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire. It appears that thereafter she was shifted to civil hospital at Beed. It further appears that at 5.30 a.m. on the same day, her statement was recorded by the police in presence of the medical officer. On plain reading of this statement it is clear that the complaint does not disclose participation of the applicant in respect of the alleged incident as to how he assisted the accused in setting the deceased on fire. 4. As per hospital record, victim expired on 11th May 2010 and during this time, her one more statement was recorded on 27th April 2010. Perusal of this supplementary statement discloses that some dispute had taken place between the deceased and other family members on a very trivial count. It is alleged that at that time, the applicant had instigated the husband and in laws of the deceased to set her on fire. However, it is not matching with the further part of the statement, which states that this incident took place due to illegal demand on the part of husband and in laws of the deceased. {3} 5. Perusal of the supplementary statement nowhere discloses that at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was present at the spot and was instigating the accused to set the deceased on fire. Considering this evidence as no act is attributed against the applicant, which directly connects the applicant with the death of the deceased and as now the investigation is over, it is not desirable that further detention of the applicant is necessary. In the premise and considering the fact that the applicant is behind bar for sufficient period, the application deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail, in connection with CR No.33/2010 registered with Pimpalner police station, on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2834-10