1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD ICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3716 /2009 [Praveen s/o Dadarao Giri vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R M Daga, Adv. for applicant Mr K S Dhote APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2010. Heard. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.218/2009 reported under sections 498A, 307 (initially ) and subsequently for offence punishable under sec.302 IPC at Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur. 3. The applicant had married with Nilima (the alleged victim), a decade ago prior to the incident. It is submitted with reference to alleged dying declaration recorded in the course of investigation at Mure Memorial Hospital, Nagpur indicating that the victim and her husband had some hot exchange of words after the husband came back home under the influence of liquor and when asked by his wife as to why he had drunk liquor. There was further quarrel as to when her husband was insisting upon cooking fish which he had brought while wife was reluctant to do so on the ground that she would not eat non-vegetarian food. It is under these circumstances due to anger, the victim poured kerosene 2 on her own person and went towards bath-room. At that time, it is alleged that the present applicant had set her ablaze by igniting a matchstick, uttering in the following manner :- …........................................................................................ ............................................................................................ However, when the clothes of the wife clothes caught fire, the husband got frightened to the hilt ; the victim poured water on her own body and shouted. Her son came along with the landlord of the house and, thereafter her husband as well as landlord extinguished the fire. In the process, her husband had also received burn injuries on his hands and took her to the Hospital for medical treatment. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in fact, the dying declaration read as it is, do indicate that it was the victim who herself poured kerosene on her own person and due to quarrel as also the fact that the applicant was in an inebriated condition, might have done something as alleged; but it has come to the fore that he tried to extinguish the fire and also took the victim to Hospital further indicating that he had no intention to cause death of the victim. 5. Learned APP vociferously opposed grant of bail the ground that even son of the applicant has stated the incident vividly, which appears to be consistent with dying declaration, that the applicant could have prevented the occurrence and secondly his conduct was most 3 blameworthy inasmuch as he lighted her clothes and, therefore, bail may be refused. 6. It could be gathered that the incident in question appears to have occurred due to sudden provocation and in a fit of rage, which the applicant had received as a result of ongoing quarrel between husband and wife. The subsequent conduct of the applicant in extinguishing the fire, receiving burn injuries in the process and then carried her to hospital, do indicate that he may not have intention to commit murder of his wife. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a Government servant working in Irrigation Department and his son Aditya is dependent on him and that he would like to work for better future of his son. The applicant undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail and there is no likelihood of his absconding. 7. Considering all these reasons, I am inclined to grant conditional bail in favour of the applicant. Hence the following order :- The applicant be released upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the equal amount, provided further that the applicant shall attend on each date of hearing in the Sessions Court. The applicant shall inform his fixed/permanent address, change in the address if any to the Investigating Officer as well as the Presiding Officer of the concerned Court. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not commit 4 any crime while on bail. Application is allowed accordingly. JUDGE sahare