1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3644 OF 2009 Kadubai w/o.Babasaheb Pawar, Age-60 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Tembhi, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Virgaon, Tq.Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENT Mrs.M.D.Thube-Mhase, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 10/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.34/2009 registered in Veergaon Police Station, Tal.Vaijapur for an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC in which now after completion of investigation, the charge sheet is filed on 29/06/2009. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the documents collected during the investigation as already the charge sheet is filed after completion of investigation. It appears that the victim Sangita 2 sustained 100% burn injuries in her matrimonial house in the evening of 18/04/2009, from where she was brought to the hospital for medical treatment. At the time of her admission in the hospital, she made certain statement as to how she sustained burn injuries to the Medical Officer, who had examined her immediately after her admission in the hospital. Further it appears that thereafter at around 1.00 a.m. of the following day, her further statement was recorded by the police wherein she had alleged that the present applicant poured kerosene on her person and her husband set her on fire and thus she sustained these injuries. On the basis of this statement before police cum dying declaration, said offence came to be registered against the present applicant and her son, the husband of deceased Sangita for an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is urged on behalf of the applicant that during the said incident as two statements are coming before the Court wherein in the earlier disclosure before the Medical Officer, it is disclosed by deceased Sangita as to how she sustained injuries that she herself set her on fire. At the same time, in the dying declaration before the police on the basis of which the complaint is recorded, she mentioned the role played by this applicant as pouring kerosene on her person by the applicant. It is further urged that during the process to extinguish the fire, this applicant has also sustained burn injuries for which she was also admitted in the hospital and was treated as indoor patient initially for 9 days. Thereafter she came to be arrested on 29/04/2009 and since then she is in custody. Her son is also in the custody. During the period, when the applicant is 3 in custody, due to lack of medical treatment provided to her, the burn injuries sustained by her are now aggregated. It is also urged that considering the role as alleged by the deceased and at present, she is of 60 years age and there is nobody to look after the grand child of applicant i.e. daughter of deceased and her son of 1 years old, who is now residing with some relatives, then on this ground also, the applicant be released on bail. 4. While opposing the bail application, two points were urged across the bar by learned APP that not only from the statement of the deceased before the police on the basis of which the complaint came to be lodged, but when the information about the deceased that the deceased had sustained burn injuries was given to her parents, the deceased had made disclosure statement before her parents that the applicant poured kerosene on her person and her husband set her on fire and if it is so, according to learned APP, there is direct nexus between the role played by this applicant and the death of deceased. In the premise applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. Considering these submissions across the bar as well as the post mortem report clearly indicates that death was occurred due to 100% burn injuries. The death occurred at around 5.45 a.m. of 19/04/2009 i.e. within the span of abut 10 hours after the deceased sustained burn injuries. In the premise, there is no doubt that the death of the deceased is homicidal death. Now considering the disclosure before the medical officer, who got admitted the deceased and the disclosure before the Medical Officer who got admitted the deceased and the disclosure 4 before the Police, there appears to be a variance. This is not a stage where at this stage to decide that out of these 2 disclosure statements, which is a correct statement of fact and whether connected the applicant with the role played by her. At the same time, it is to be considered that the applicant has also sustained burn injuries during the said episode and was initially treated as indoor patient for 9 days and thereafter she came to be arrested and her injuries are also aggregated because of lack of medical treatment. The age of the applicant is 60 years and so far as there is nobody to take care of grand child of deceased and the son of present applicant, can not be easily disbelieved. In the premise, considering all these circumstances, a case is made out to enlarge the applicant accused on bail on certain conditions. In the premise, application deserves following order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, the applicant accused not to contact with the parents of the deceased till finalization of trial. 4. Application stands disposed of in terms of above order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.appl.3644-09