( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4344 OF 2010 Raju s/o Bhagirath Irche, R/o Aurangpur, Taluka and District Aurangabad at present Jaibhawani Nagar, Aurangabad. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. R.R. Imale, advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 19th November, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for bail. 2. The incident giving rise to the prosecution occurred in the odd hours of the night between 25th and 26th May, 2010 inside the residential house used by the applicant and deceased Sheetal. It appears that Sheetal was estranged by her first husband and had developed intimacy with the applicant. She was having a minor male child from her first marriage. She and applicant were residing together like wife ( 2 ) and husband. Both of them used to earn livelihood by doing labour work. They were residing in Indira Nagar locality in a small rented room. In the relevant night, she received burn injuries. She was admitted in the Government Hospital. While she was under treatment, on 24th June, 2010, she died as a result of 71% burn injuries. 3. The offence was registered on 14th June, 2010, on basis of dying declaration of Sheetal which was recorded whilst she was under medical treatment in the Government Hospital, Aurangabad. She named the applicant as author of the burn injuries. She narrated before the Police Officer that her foster husband i.e. the applicant poured kerosene on her person on the relevant night and set her ablaze. 4. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP and on perusal of the investigation papers, it prima facie appears that when Sheetal sustained burn injuries, immediately, her neighbours came to the house. The statements of the neighbours viz. Sunderabai and Sagita prima facie would show that injured Sheetal did not disclose name of the applicant as author of the burn injuries. Not only that, but their versions go to show that the applicant changed clothes ( 3 ) of Sheetal and took her out. He brought an auto-rickshaw and transported injured Sheetal to the Government Hospital. Needless to say, though the opportunity was available immediately after the incident, yet, Sheetal did not name the applicant as the author of the burn injuries. Copy of the report submitted by the P.H.C. B. No. 2392 (S.N. Chaudhary), who was attached to the Government Medical College and Hospital Police Chowki, reveals that on 13th June, 2010, one of the relatives of injured Sheetal informed that the applicant had quarrelled with Sheetal in the relevant night and had set her on fire after pouring kerosene on her person. Thus, it was the relative of Sheetal who transmitted such information to the police for the first time on 13th June, 2010. Thereafter, her dying declaration was recorded on 14th June, 2010. Under the circumstances, it is probable that the dying declaration was recorded at the behest of her relatives. In any case, the delay in recording of the dying declaration is of about 20 days and appears to be rather inexplicable. 5. Considering the fact that there was no immediate disclosure by injured Sheetal, that she was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital by the applicant and the neighbours were not informed by her about authorship of the ( 4 ) burn injuries, I am inclined to grant the bail application. Hence, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with solvent surety bond in the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions, and on condition that he shall attend the Court of Sessions on each and every date and shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses and shall make no attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The trial is expedited. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4344-10