1 crap3416.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3416 OF 2011 Sau. Ratan Abhiman Sonwane ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri R.V.Gore, advocate holding for Shri D.H.Jadhavar, advocate for applicant Shri B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 16th August, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking bail, in connection with C.R. No. 175 of 2010, registered on 7.12.2010 at Tuljapur police station, District Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 2 crap3416.11 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered against the applicant and co-accused, on the basis of complaint lodged by one Dilip Bhagwan Gaikwad on 7.12.2010 i.e. father of victim Sadhana. The applicant is the mother-in-law of said victim Sadhana. It is alleged in the said complaint that victim Sadhana was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and illtreatment by the applicant and other co-accused persons on account of unlawful demand of Rs.20,000/- to be brought by her from her parental house for the purchase of motor cycle, and ultimately, on 3.12.2010 she was assaulted by the applicant and co-accused and they poured kerosene on her person and set her ablazed and she sustained 93 per cent burn injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on 7.12.2010. 4 Admittedly, two dying declarations of the victim Sadhana were recorded by the investigating agency i.e. the first dying declaration was recorded on 3.12.2011 by the police officer; whereas the second dying declaration of the victim was recorded on 4.12.2010 by the Special Executive Magistrate. 3 crap3416.11 However, both the said dying declarations are apparently contrary to each other, since the first dying declaration discloses that the victim sustained accidental burns ; whereas the second dying declaration discloses that the applicant and victim’s husband Gautam set her ablazed. 5 Apparently, the contents of both the said dying declarations are contrary to each other and the dying declaration recorded on 3.12.2011 is first in point of time, which reflects that the victim Sadhana sustained accidental burns. Moreover, the statement of Bapu Tukaram Sonwane discloses that victim’s husband poured kerosene on the person of victim and set her on fire, and apparently, absolves the applicant herein. So also, the report of the Chemical Analyser is negative in respect of Exh. 5 i.e. the sari of the applicant herein as regards the test of detection of kerosene. 6 Besides, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, and therefore, apparently, there is no necessity to keep the applicant further more in custody. Moreover, she is in custody since 7.12.2010 i.e. for last about 7 4 crap3416.11 to 8 months. So also, the applicant is a woman of about 50 years age and all the said factors cumulatively lead to the position that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7 In the result, present application is allowed and the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, in connection with C.R. No. 175 of 2010, registered with Tuljapur police station, District Osmanabad, on the condition that the applicant shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner, directly or indirectly, and present application stands disposed of accordingly. 8 The above observations are prima facie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3416.11