1 CR.APL NO.551/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 9. APPLN/551/2011 BALAJI GANGADHAR BODKE [Criminal] V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mrs.Sabahat Tarique Kazi, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. V.H.Dighe, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 22-2-2011 1. Heard learned Counsel for the accused/applicant. Earlier bail application (No.3389/2010) was rejected. This is second attempt. 2. The accused married to deceased Snehlata one year prior to the incident dt.6.4.2010. Snehlata is daughter of maternal uncle of accused/applicant. In the earlier night dt.5th April, 2010, there was brawl between the couple. The accused/applicant banged her against a wall, she suffered injuries, she was even dashed at the floor. The aftermath has taken its toll on 6.4.2010 as the victim was doused with kerosene and immolated. 2 CR.APL NO.551/2011 3. The main plank of submission from learned Counsel is: the three dying declarations of the deceased, placed at page Nos. 14, 19 and 21 are inconsistent to each other, its benefit should have been given to the accused/applicant who is languishing in custody from 12th April, 2010. 4. The first statement illustrated that while cooking the victim suffered accidental burns as her apparels were of polyster. The fire was extinguished by husband and neighbours. She was taken to hospital at Degloor. In the subsequent statement, dt.7.4.2010, she has implicated accused/applicant and father in law having doused her with kerosene ignited her. In the third statement, she has repeated the same and put a clarification about her foremost statement as, at the relevant time, on 6.4.2010, she was in intolerable agony of the burns and, consequently, she could not recollect what has happened, however, having read her earlier statement, she has 3 CR.APL NO.551/2011 corrected herself with the factual matrix. 5. Learned Counsel also informs, the accused/applicant has suffered injuries. I have gone through the same which is 5 per cent superficial in nature. 6. The investigation papers reveal, Sopanrao Bapurao Bhise, Sanjay Bodke implicated the accused applicant as to his specific role and the victim making an oral dying declaration to them. The post mortem notes illustrated that the death was due to burns which were 97 per cent in nature. The analyzer's report dt.4th Sept.,2010, refers to the saree, petticoat of the victim, including liquid in a tin can, indicating that they have the test for detection of kerosene being positive. Noticing on the apparels of the deceased kerosene, it cannot be said that she had suffered accidental burns. 7. Taking survey of above facts, no case to release the accused/applicant on bail. Application 4 CR.APL NO.551/2011 rejected. Learned Sessions Judge seized with the matter shall ensure to complete the trial upto Nov.,30th, 2011 (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/551-11crapl