1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3667 OF 2009 Sau.Nagarbai W/o.Janardhan Mahanor, Age-52 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Mukindpur, Tal. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through Incharge, Police Station Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENT Mr.V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for the respondent/State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release her on bail in an offence registered in Newasa Police Station vide C.R.No.59/2009 u/s. 307, 504, 498-A r/w.34 of IPC, later on converted in an offence punishable u/s. 302, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for respondent State. As earlier notice was given to respondent State, at the time of 2 submissions across the bar, papers of investigation till carried out were placed before this Court. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, my attention was drawn towards the disclosure as to how the incidence occurred which was narrated before the Medical Officer, Newasa, where the deceased was initially treated. Thereafter she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar on 05/03/2009 where also she has narrated about the incident as to how she has sustained the burnt injuries. Thereafter my attention is drawn towards the dying declaration recorded on 06/03/2009 and later on recorded by the Executive Magistrate. It is urged across the bar that during the investigation there were two disclosure statements made by the deceased before the Medical Officer and two dying declaration, one is recorded by the executive Magistrate and another is recorded by the Police Officer and there is variance in these disclosure statements as well as the dying declarations. As in the disclosure statement before the Medical Officer, the reason of injuries sustained was given as due to accident. As against this in the dying declaration, the applicant has narrated about the person who poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire which ultimately resulted in her death. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 09/08/2009 and investigation is over. Considering the age of the applicant, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 4. The only point urged during the course of submissions across 3 the bar on behalf of respondent state that the dying declaration before the Police Officer as well as before the Executive Magistrate discloses the role played by the present applicant who has poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire which is a direct nexus between the role of the applicant and the death of the deceased. In the premise, prayed to reject the bail application. 5. Considering these submissions across the bar, one fact is clear from the papers annexed with the application about the treatment provided to the deceased in the hospital at Newasa as well as at Ahmednagar, those papers were not produced by the Police either before the Lower Court nor before this Court alongwith the papers of investigation. It is not in dispute that the deceased was treated initially at Newasa and then at Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. Why those papers of medical treatment provided to the deceased were kept away from the Court below as well as from this Court, the reasons are best known to the prosecution. At this juncture, this Court need not enter into the fact as to why those papers are not produced before this Court. While considering the bail application, if there are inconsistent statements given during the investigation, then in such circumstances without entering into the controversy as to which statement is correct statement of fact, the applicant can release on bail under the discretionary powers. It is made clear that Learned Trial Judge not to influence with the observations made in this order while deciding the case on merit. Hence the application require following order. 4 1. Application is allowed. 2. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- alongwith executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After release of applicant on bail, she is directed not to contact or tamper with the witnesses of prosecution. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3667-09