1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA)No.432/2011 Bandu Namdeo Urkude and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 16/08/2011. 1] This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicants for releasing them on bail in Crime No. 71/2011 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] Applicant no.1 is the husband of the deceased whereas applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of applicant no.1. The marriage of applicant no.1 with deceased was solemnized in the year 2005. The applicants submit that they have been falsely implicated in the said crime No.71/2011 and that the deceased had sustained burn injuries on 7.6.2011, due to accident and the deceased has stated so in her dying declaration. The applicants have further stated that the material investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet would be filed soon and, therefore, the custody of the applicants is not required. The applicants have undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions which this Court may impose. 3] Upon receipt of the notice, the respondent has filed reply thereby resisting the bail application. 2 4] The respondent has stated that for the last two years the applicants were demanding dowry of Rs. 20,000/- and since the deceased had refused to bring the money from her parents, she was being harassed and ill-treated and, therefore, on 7.6.2011 the deceased sustained burn injuries and died on 12.6.2011. It is further stated in the reply that there is strong prima facie case against the applicants. 5] Heard arguments. Learned Advocate Shri A. R. Wagh argued on behalf of the applicants whereas the learned A.P.P. Shri S. S. Doifode argued on behalf of the respondent. 6] Perused the case papers. 7] Admittedly, the marriage of deceased with applicant no.1 was solemnized on 1/5/2005 whereas deceased Sunita died on account of 75% burn injuries on 12.6.2011. Therefore, the death occurred within a period of seven years from the date of marriage. 8] In the circumstances above, prima facie, the presumption under Section 113-A as well as Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act becomes applicable to the case. The applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of applicant no.1. 9] It is true that in the first dying declaration made before the police, the deceased stated that “padar” of her saree fell on gas-stove while preparing tea as a result of which saree caught fire and, therefore, she sustained burn injuries. However, the other evidence including the circumstantial evidence reveals that the above dying declaration recorded by the police on 8.6.2011 is not prima facie reliable. 10] As per the panchanama of spot of occurrence a container of kerosene, burnt pieces of saree and blouse with smell of kerosene were found on the floor of the kitchen of the house and there was smell of kerosene also on the floor of the kitchen. During the spot panchanama no kerosene stove was 3 found at the spot. There is, therefore, doubt regarding preparation of tea by the deceased on kerosene stove and her saree catching fire accidentally while preparing tea. 11] The evidence on record reveals that all the applicants were present in the house at the time of incident. One witness namely Sumanbai Ide, who is aunt of accused no.1 has stated that the deceased Sunita told her that she had poured kerosene on herself. Her statement further reveals that soon before the death the deceased had told her about ill-treatment meted out to her by the applicants and Sumanbai told the parents of deceased to take her back further saying that the deceased would otherwise commit suicide. There is therefore strong prima facie evidence against the applicants. 12] The charge-sheet is not yet filed in the present case. 13] In my view, the applicants are not entitled for bail at this stage. 14] In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar.