{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3849 OF 2009 Santosh s/o Nanasaheb Dhaneshwar Age-24 years, Occ-Labour R/o Ashok Nagar, Tq-Shrirampur Dist-Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 18th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant, who is arrayed as an accused in CR No.112/2009 registered with Shrirampur police station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 109 and 452 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed to released him on bail. 2. As notice of this application was already given to the respondents / State, the learned APP has placed the papers of investigation so also the charge sheet in my hand for my perusal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the {2} submissions of the learned APP. 4. It appears that the alleged incident occurred in the night of 15.04.2009 in the premises of the complainant. It is alleged in the compliant that the present applicant along with one Sharad Kacharu Jadhav came into the hut of the complainant, where she was chitchatting with one Shivaji Narsing Jadhav. It is also alleged that in the presence of said Shivaji the applicant and said Sharad demanded money in respect of the transaction between the late husband of the complainant and somebody and during the exchange of words, the applicant took a kerosene can, which was kept below the bed, and poured kerosene on the person of the complainant and set her on fire and she was also restrained from going outside the hut. Immediately, on the same day, on her statement an offence came to be registered, u/s 307 r/w 34 of the IPC. Subsequently, on 25.04.2009 when the complainant succumbed to the burn injuries the offence came to be converted into as punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. 5. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant emphasized on three points. Firstly, my attention is drawn towards the changing stand taken by the complainant about her statement recorded during the course of investigation, secondly even if the case as alleged is accepted as it is, then also it cannot be said that the applicant has visited the hut of the complainant with preintention and premeditation and lastly since the date of arrest i.e. from 15.04.2009, the applicant is in jail. Therefore, it is requested to release him on bail. {3} 6. The bail application is opposed by the learned APP on the ground that there is evidence of eye witness, which establishes nexus between the death of the complainant and role played by the present applicant. 7. Considering these submissions, the facts disclosed in the compliant and the statement of the eye witness that after the altercation between the applicant and the complainant, the applicant took the kerosene can, which was lying in the hut, and poured the kerosene on the person of the complainant and then set her on fire, cannot be said to be an act with preintention or premeditation. Apart from it, now the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed and hence there is no question of the applicant’s interference with the investigation. In the premise, case is made out to exercise discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail by imposing certain conditions. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing a PR bond in the like amount. The applicant is prohibited from entering the Ashoknagar area of Shrirampur city till the commencement of the trial. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3849-09