{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2938 OF 2009 Murlidhar s/o Bapurao Fatke Age-52 years, Occ-Business R/o Karol, Post-Golatgaon, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Nava Mondha, Parbhani 2. Vilas s/o Nagnath Khedkar Age-30 years, Occ-Teacher R/o Lokmanya Nagar, Parbhani RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2939 OF 2009 Murlidhar s/o Bapurao Fatke Age-52 years, Occ-Business R/o Karol, Post-Golatgaon, Tq & Dist-Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Nava Mondha, Parbhani 2. Murlidhar s/o Nagnath Khedkar Age-40 years, Occ-Teacher R/o Lokmanya Nagar, Parbhani RESPONDENTS {2} ....... Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th February 2010 PER COURT: 1. Both these applications are moved by the original complainant, father of deceased Rani, for cancellation of bail granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in favour of respondent No.2 in both the applications. Cancellation of bail is prayed on the ground that the same is granted by the learned Sessions Judge without application of mind in a serious offence of murder of a newly wedded girl within a period of two months of her marriage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP followed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 in respective applications. Learned APP has supported both the applications, whereas learned counsel for respective respondent No.2 in both the applications, has vehemently opposed the cancellation of bail and has urged that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly granted the bail after hearing the parties and assessing the evidence before it. {3} 3. It has to bear in mind that the orders impugned in both the applications are passed by the learned Sessions Judge after the investigation was complete and charge sheet was filed, which was on record. 4. Admittedly, respondent Vilas is the husband of deceased Rani, whose marriage was performed on 17.02.2009. The alleged incident occurred during the night between 17th and 18th April 2009. The alleged incident occurred on terrace of the residential premises of the accused. Both respondent No.2, Vilas and Murlidhar are brothers of each other. From the papers of investigation it appears that deceased Rani was seen moving on the terrace with flames on her person. The said incident was noticed by witness Lahoti at about 3.00 a.m. on 18.04.2009 and in turn he had intimated the same to the police station and to one journalist, Patange. The said witness Lahoti had been to the house of the accused along with PSI Kolhe and two constables at that time they heard a female voice from inside the house “Save me”. When all of them went inside the house they noticed that a lady, later on it transpired that she was deceased Rani, was lying on the bed in burnt condition. She had stated that the accused are trying to kill her and hence sought for help from these persons and she has also disclosed them as to how she sustained the burn injuries. Thereafter, message was given to her parents and she was shifted to the hospital where her dying declarations came to be recorded by the police as well as by the Executive Magistrate. After recording {4} statements of neighbours and collecting necessary evidence, charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, it appears, that both the respondents have moved applications for bail before the Sessions Judge, Parbhani, which came to be allowed vide orders dated 24.06.2009 and 21.07.2009 respectively, which are impugned in these criminal applications. 5. On perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find reference to the statements of PSI Kolhe, witness Lahoti and journalist Patange, who had taken the deceased to the hospital and whose statements are recorded by the police to whom the deceased had disclosed as to how she had sustained burn injuries. On the contrary, it appears that learned Sessions Judge is impressed by some variations in the dying declarations recorded by the police and also by the Executive Magistrate. It is the duty of the criminal Courts, while deciding application for bail after filing of the charge sheet, to consider the overall effect of the entire evidence collected during the investigation and not to concentrate only on dying declarations. No doubt, there is some variance in the two dying declarations of the deceased, however at the same time the disclosure as to how she sustained burn injuries to the three witnesses immediately after they reached at the spot when she had just sustained the burn injuries and had no time to think to implicate someone than to save her life is also requires to be taken into consideration. {5} 6. It has to take into consideration whether this disclosure, first in time, is supported or corroborated with any independent circumstance. It has to bear in mind that burnt pieces of sari and other clothes coupled with tin of kerosene and match box were found on the terrace where the incident has occurred and disclosed by the deceased to the said three witnesses, supports the version of the deceased. It appears that before giving any opportunity to the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that possibility of suicidal death cannot be ruled out. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has totally overlooked the fact that immediately on arrival of PSI Kolhe, witness Lahoti and journalist Patange, the deceased had disclosed to them as to how she had sustained the burn injuries and she had also requested them to save her from the accused. Thus, it appears that the impugned orders are passed without application of mind and without taking into consideration the entire evidence which was before the Sessions Court and hence caused injustice to the deceased. The case requires to be considered in the light of death of a young woman by burning that too within a period of two months of her marriage, which is a clear case of homicidal death, which is totally ignored by the learned Sessions Judge and hence interference of this Court in the orders impugned, is necessary. In the premise, though the liberty is not misused by the accused, yet considering the fact that the bail was granted or liberty was given to respondent No.2 in both the application is without application of mind and without proper {6} appreciation of evidence and hence the same needs to be curtailed by cancelling the bail granted in favour of respondent No.2 in both the applications. 7. In the result, both the applications are allowed. The orders dated 24.06.2009 passed in Criminal M.A. No.329/2009 and dated 21.07.2009 passed in Criminal M.A. No.384/2009 thereby granting bail in favour of both respondent No.2 are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 in both the applications are directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today, failing which the trial court is hereby directed to issue non bailable warrant against both the respondents. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln2938-39.10