{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2113 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2114 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2115 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2043 OF 2010 XXX---XXX CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2113 OF 2010 Sow.Kesarbai Taterao Bhargande Age-62 years, Occ-Household R/o Salgara (Divti) Tq-Tuljapur Dist-Osmanabad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police station Naldurg Tq-Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2114 OF 2010 Amol Taterao Bhargande Age-25 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Salgara (Divti) Tq-Tuljapur Dist-Osmanabad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police station Naldurg Tq-Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad RESPONDENT {2} WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2115 OF 2010 Kiran Taterao Bhargande Age-22 years, Occ-Agri R/o Salgara (Divti) Tq-Tuljapur Dist-Osmanabad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police station Naldurg Tq-Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2043 OF 2010 1. Taterao Dyandeo Bhargande Age-67 years, Occ-Agri R/o Salgara (Divti) Tq-Tuljapur Dist-Osmanabad 2. Sow.Kesarbai Taterao Bhargande DELETED 3. Amol Taterao Bhargande DELETED 4. Kiran Taterao Bhargande DELETED ...... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police station Naldurg Tq-Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Santosh T.Ghute, Advocate for the applicants Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... {3} [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 28th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. These applicants, by filing the present criminal applications, have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.22/2010 registered with Naldurg police station, Tq- Tuljapur, Dist-Osmanabad, for an offence punishable u/s 302, 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the applicants are arrested on 20.02.2010 and since then they are in jail. 2. It is informed that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 13.05.2010 before the JMFC, Tuljapur. As the applications filed by the respective applicants are rejected by the lower court, they are before this Court seeking bail. As all the applicants are seeking bail in respect of same crime, all these applications are being dispose of by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsel for respective applicants followed by learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 4. Admittedly, deceased Rajeshree got married with one Kalidas prior to 7/8 years of the indent dated 18.02.2010. 5. It appears from the complaint as well as from the dying declaration of the deceased, recorded soon after she was admitted in the hospital by her husband, that while she was preparing food, {4} in the evening of 18th February 2010, she sustained burn injuries, as her sari caught fire from the stove. Admittedly, on 18th midnight itself Rajeshree succumbed to burn injuries in the hospital. 6. It appears that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded at 10.00 p.m. on 18th itself, after it was certified by the doctor that she was in fit condition to give statement. She has narrated in the dying declaration that while she was preparing food on a stove, her sari caught fire and due to that she sustained burn injuries. Postmortem notes indicate that the death of the deceased is caused due to 75% superficial burn injuries. Thus it is clear that though the death of the deceased is unnatural, yet it appears that the same is caused due to accident. 7. After the incident was reported to the relatives of the deceased, from maternal side, complaint is lodged by her father on 19th February 2010 alleging that there was demand of money for purchase of truck by the husband of the deceased and on that count there was harassment to the deceased. Applicants are mother in law, brothers in law and father in law of the deceased, respectively. Though it is alleged that there was harassment of the deceased by the applicants, yet admittedly, the deceased was not residing in a joint family with the applicants and she was residing separately with her husband. So far as statements of neighbours recorded during the investigation are concerned, the same do not support the statements of the relatives of the deceased from {5} maternal side. In the premise and considering the fact that witnesses reside in different village than the village where the applicants reside coupled with the fact that now the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed and hence there are no chances of interference with the investigation, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail. 8. In the result, all the applications are allowed. All the applicants be released on bail in connection with CR No.22/2010 registered with Naldurg police station, Tq-Tuljapur, Dist- Osmanabad, on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicants are directed not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, all the applications stand disposed of. 9. It is hereby made clear that the rule of parity will not apply to the case of the husband of the deceased, Kalidas, in case he applies for bail. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2113-10