( 1 ) cria5024.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5024 OF 2011 Raju s/o. Nazir Tadvi .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. H.M. Salve, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 14.12.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides. Perused the charge-sheet. The applicant is arrested in connection with C.R. No. 33 of 2011, registered with Savda Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon. The applicant and deceased, by name, Ashabai were husband and wife. The applicant had attended a function at Gaurkheda, where deceased and near relatives of deceased were also present. According to F.I.R. dated 15th May, 2011 filed by father of the deceased, the applicant all of a sudden ( 2 ) cria5024.11 called upon the deceased to accompany him and he took deceased to the rear portion of house of Allauddin. Thereafter, complainant heard shouts of his daughter and at that time he and Allauddin went to the spot, from where the shouts emanated. He found his daughter Ashabai burning and he saw that the applicant was running away. Ashabai was taken to hospital at Savda and ultimately taken to Jalgaon Civil Hospital. During the journey from place of incident till the hospital, large number of witnesses had enquired with Ashabai as to what happened and Ashabai had stated that her husband poured kerosene on her took her on fire. 2. The postmortem report indicates death on account of 100% burn injuries. 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. According to him, soon after the incident, no police ( 3 ) cria5024.11 complaint was filed and it is only after death of Ashabai on 15th May, 2011, F.I.R. is recorded by father of the deceased. He submitted that it is very strange that while Ashabai was in two hospitals, nobody called police with a view to register crime against present applicant, who is said to have indulged in the occurrence. According to learned advocate for the applicant, there was no reason for the applicant to put Ashabai on fire and after due deliberation the F.I.R. has been filed against the applicant and witnesses from different places have gathered at the police station on 15th May, 2011 and have rendered statements, so as to falsely implicate the present applicant. 4. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Sonawane opposed the stand of the present applicant by contending that due weightage has to be given to the statements of various witnesses to whom Ashabai has narrated the incident. He submitted that A.D.R. was recorded on 14th December, 2011, itself, ( 4 ) cria5024.11 after death of Ashabai and absence of reasons for Ashabai suffering burn injuries by itself would not mean that whole story is concocted. He also submitted that neither Ashabai nor relatives nor father of Ashabai had reason to falsely implicant present applicant. He prayed for rejection of the application for bail. 5. Having perused entire record, I am inclined to observe that prima facie case for charge under section 302 of the I.P.C. is made out against present applicant. 6. Present applicant, Ashabai and near relatives had gathered at a venue to celebrate a function. Ashabai was taken to hospital after she was put on fire. In such situation absence of the present applicant nearby Ashabai is not a normal event. Not a single witness has stated about presence of the present applicant. This fact is against the interest of the applicant. The witnesses who have seen Ashabai burning have also stated that they saw ( 5 ) cria5024.11 present applicant running away from the said spot. This will in a way go to show that the applicant ran away after the incident took place to avoid his arrest. This circumstance is against the interest of the applicant. 7. Ashabai has died on account of 100% burn injuries. It was sought to be suggested that she must not have been able to speak as to what happened on account of burn injuries. One can not assume that Ashabai was not be able to tell about the incident. Witnesses have stated that Ashabai narrated to them how the incident had happened. One cannot flatly reject the said statements. Record also does not indicate that prior to the date of incident, there was long standing instances of cruelty. As such, there is no question of anybody from the side of Ashabai or even Ashabai falsely implicating the present applicant. 8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid I am ( 6 ) cria5024.11 inclined to observe that the prosecution has been able to make out prima facie case for charge under section 302 of the I.P.C. against the applicant. The allegations against present applicant are serious. The incident has taken place just in May, 2011. Substantial number of witnesses have stated against present applicant. In my view, it would be unsafe to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the following order is passed :- 9. The application for bail is rejected. [R.Y. GANOO, J.] snk/2011/DEC11/cria5024.11