1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3072 OF 2010 1. Kishan Keru Gaikwad, Age-38 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Brahmani, Tq.Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. Dattu Deoram Ghorpade, Age-43 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Dattache Shingave, Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.K.S.Patil, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 13/08/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed for their release on bail in connection with CR No.204/2010, registered in Pathardi Police Station of Dist. Ahmednagar in which these applicants are in jail since 11/06/2010. It is informed that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 12/07/2010 in the Court of J.M.F,C.Pathardi and it is numbered as RTC No.189/2010. As the 2 attempts of these applicants to get themselves released on bail could not succeed before the Lower Court, they are before this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Admittedly, deceased Jyoti is the wife of Namdeo, and these applicants are brother in law of the deceased Jyoti. Deceased Jyoti expired/succumbed to burn injuries on 27/05/2010, and this incident occurred at the residential premises of Namdeo, is not under dispute. 4. In this background, learned counsel for applicant took me to the complaint as well as other papers of investigation. It appears that the said complaint came to be lodged by the father of victim Jyoti by name Manjabapu Kondiba Gadekar. According to him, prior to 6 years of alleged incident, marriage of Jyoti was solemnized with Namdeo. Her husband, in laws and other relatives including these applicants were harassing Jyoti on the count of insufficient dowry paid by her parents in her marriage. It appears that marriage of sister of Jyoti by name Anita was also scheduled. For that purpose, parents of Jyoti had been to one 3 cloth shop to purchase the wedding clothes of said Anita. These applicants alongwith others had been to that shop and demanded 2 tolas of gold from the complainant. When the demand was not satisfied, the applicants, it is alleged, had threatened that the complainant would have to suffer dire consequences of life. In that evening itself, at around 6.00 p.m., complainant received phone call from one Bhaurao that he saw some smoke was coming out from the house of deceased. It is further alleged that he rushed to the house of deceased as he also r/o. of same village. It is noticed that the door of the house was bolted from outside and hence by removing the bolt, they entered inside and found Jyoti in partly burnt condition. On her way to hospital, she gave the dying declaration that in that evening, these applicants caught hold her hands, another brother in law Eknath caught hold her legs, her father in law poured kerosene and her husband set her on fire. Thereafter, they closed the door from outside and went away from the spot. 5. I have already made it clear that Jyoti succumbed to burn injuries, which can be either suicidal or homicidal and and this issue can be decided at the time of trial. There is reference in the spot 4 panchnama, which was prepared within 12 hours after the incident took place that one of the plank of the door was required to broke opened. It is urged that if the theory of the incident, as alleged in the complaint, to be accepted as it is, then the doors must have been unlatched and then only one could have entered in the house and it must not have been broke opened and hence it is revealed that the door was not bolted from outside. It is brought to the notice of this Court in the application moved by another brother in law Eknath bearing no.2563/2010, which was decided by this Court vide its order dated 19/07/2010 that Eknath was on duty at about 50 kms. away from the spot of incident, when the incident had occurred. The only reason to mention this fact here is that if the brother in law was not present at the spot, but was on duty at about 50 kms away from the spot of incident, even then his name is included in the dying declaration, it appears to be un-natural. 6. Learned APP has opposed this application as according to him, the panchnama was drawn on the next day of the incident, and merely because there is reference, the door was broke opened, it do not indicates that the door was bolted from outside. The fact remains that if the contents of the spot panchnama do not support the statement of 5 witnesses recorded during the investigation, then this is a case of doubtful circumstances and if it is so, on the ground of parity, these applicants are also entitled for the benefit of bail, as now the investigation is also over and there are no chances of these applicants that they may tamper the evidence of prosecution. 7. In the result, application is allowed. Both the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. It is made clear that the present applicants are released on bail in peculiar circumstances and the above observations shall not be treated as a ground for parity to release the husband of victim, if any such application is moved by him. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/AUG 2010/cri.appl.3072-10