IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1916/2009 [Arun Kawaduji Pandhare vs. State of Maharashtra] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 3 rd July, 2009 Heard Shri Khare, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Sonare, APP, for respondent-State. Learned APP has filed reply today. The same is taken on record. By this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, the applicant is claiming bail. He is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 498-A, 307, 302 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C for allegedly causing death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the dying declaration relied by the prosecution dated 13.1.2009 is the latter dying declaration which was filed along with the charge sheet. Her earlier dying declaration is not filed along with the charge sheet, which states that while she was cooking on the stove, she suffered accidental fire. According to him, the dying declaration pressed into service by the prosecution is false and therefore, the applicant would be entitled for bail. In the second dying declaration of the deceased, the deceased has clearly made out a case that she had earlier stated that she had suffered accidental fire while cooking on stove at the instance of her husband. Therefore, the first dying declaration, if any, which does not incriminate the applicant is clearly explained. As regards validity and reliability of the second dying declaration, suffice it to say that it is the matter to be considered at the time of time. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is not possible to grant bail. As such the application is rejected. However, liberty to the applicant to move for bail if the trial does not commence within a period of three months from today. Learned trial judge is directed to expedite the matter and frame charge within a period of one month and endeavour to complete the trial in any case within a period of six months. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and the same shall not influence the learned trial Judge in any way while deciding anything on merits. Application disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit