AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.893 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.312 OF 2007 Mohamed Imtiyaz Mohd. Rafik ... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Ms. Bhakti Deshpande h/f Mr. P.P. Runwal for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. This bail application is filed by one Mohamed Imtiyaz Mohd. Rafik, who is original accused 1. He was tried in Sessions Case No.275 of 2003 for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") read with Sections 34 and 114 of the IPC. He was tried along with two others i.e. one Mohd. Aiyaaz Mohd. Rafiq and Smt. Shahin. It must be stated at the AJN 2 outset that earlier bail application filed by the present applicant was withdrawn by counsel appearing for him. So far as application filed by accused 2 is concerned, it has been rejected by this court by a reasoned order. Accused 3 – Smt. Shahin, however, has been released on bail. Accused 3 is the wife of the present applicant. Accused 2 is his brother. In short, the prosecution case appears to be that accused 1 wanted to have illicit relation with deceased Hanifa. On the day of the incident i.e. on 11/11/2002 the deceased was alone in her house. At that time, his wife accused 3 came there. She started fighting with the deceased. Accused 1 and 2 also came there. Accused 1 instigated accused 2. Accused 2 poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. Due to the burn injuries received by the deceased, she died on 15/11/2002. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel submitted that there are inconsistencies in the dying declarations of AJN 3 the deceased and, hence, the applicant should be released on bail. 3. It is not possible for us to release the applicant on bail. The deceased has made two dying declarations. One dying declaration is recorded by PSI Bansode and the other dying declaration is recorded by PW-2 Dr. Gaud. In both the dying declarations, the deceased had clearly stated that accused 1 instigated accused 2, accused 2 poured kerosene on the her and set her on fire. PW-2 Dr. Gaud has stated that the deceased was in a fit condition to make the statement. Besides, there is one eye-witness PW-1 Halimabi, who claims to have seen the incident. In the circumstances, it is not possible for us to grant the application for bail. 4. Criminal application is rejected. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]