1 BA 566.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 566 OF 2011 Saroj Balmukund Singh and Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Ms. Vidhyavati S. Gaikwad for the Applicants. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 9th JUNE 2011. P.C. :- Heard Mrs. Gaikwad, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mrs. Shinde, learned APP for the State. 2. Anjali, the daughter-in-law of the Applicant No.1 and sister-in-law of the Applicant No.2 caught fired on 30.12.2010 and sustained burn injuries. She succumbed to the burn injuries on that day itself. On the next day, her brother Anjani Kumar lodged a report with the Police alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C., 306 of I.P.C., 304B of I.P.C. r/w. 34 of I.P.C. by the husband and his relatives, including the present Applicants. The case of the first informant, and of the investigating agency is that the said 2 BA 566.11.sxw Anjali was treated with cruelty since her marriage, which had taken place in November 2005; and that, she was being harassed for the purposes of dowry; and that, it is because of such cruelty and harassment, that Anjali committed suicide. 3. A statement of Anjali was recorded before her death by the A.P.I., at Khalapur Police Station. In that statement, she advanced a version that while she was heating water for bath, the stove burst and she caught fire. Emphasis of the learned Advocate for the Applicants is on this aspect. It is contended that this dying declaration of Anjali shows that fire was accidentally caught and that, therefore, there is no prima- facie case against the Applicants. It is also submitted that there had been no allegations of cruelty or ill treatment during the period of five years of married life, and it is only after the death of Anjali, that such allegations were, for the first time, made. 4. Mrs. Shinde, learned APP contended that the dying declaration of Anjali cannot be relied upon. She contended that there are circumstances indicating that the version in the dying declaration cannot be accepted. She drew my attention to the spot panchanama and pointed out that the situation observed on the spot is not consistent with the version mentioned in the dying declaration of Anjali. She, therefore, submits that the possibility of the dying declaration being a result of tutoring, cannot be ruled out. She has drawn my attention to the statements recorded in the course of 3 BA 566.11.sxw investigation indicating that Anjali was being treated with cruelty by her husband and his relatives. 5. I find that in the Medico/Legal Case Register of Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital, the history of the accident is recorded as : " burns due to kerosene stove blast. According to patient, she had a fall from stairs on a kerosene jar which spilled over and hereby water was kept for boiling on a kerosene stove which blasted and the patient had burns..." 6. Apparently, this history of the incident was given by Anjali only and the same is consistent with her dying declaration. 7. It would be hazardous, at this stage to try to evaluate the conflicting pieces of material and attempt to ascertain, which of them, are likely to be true. What may only be observed, is, that the material collected during the investigation is conflicting. 8. Even, otherwise, the Applicants are in custody since January 2011. Since charge-sheet has already been filed, I do not think it desirable that the Applicants should be detained in custody till the trial would be over, which would certainly take a long time. 4 BA 566.11.sxw 9. The Applicants are ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one surety in like amount. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to endevour to dispose it of within the period of one year, from today. (A.M. THIPSAY,J.)