1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2010 Anil @ Anand Vitthal Shinde, Age-32 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.At Post : Loni, Tal.Paranda APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT (Through P.I.Paranda Police Station, Paranda) Mr.T.G.Gaikwad, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 27/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No. 59/2009, registered in Paranda Police Station for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. 34 of IPC, in which he came to be arrested on 05/06/2009 and since then is in custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed on 24/08/2009. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State and also perused the papers of 2 investigation. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, and on perusal of the papers of investigation, one thing can not be disputed that the death of victim was caused due to sustaining burn injuries, which incident took place at her home in the early hours of 02/06/2009. It is the allegation in the complaint that the present complaint is based on the dying declaration of victim Anjali herself that when she claimed partition of the ancestral properties from her brother in law, the present applicant and mother in law, they poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire, from where she was taken to Barshi in Mama Hospital, where she was initially treated and then she succumbed to death on 06/06/2009. 4. Two facts require to be considered, first the alleged motive behind the offence is the partition of the ancestral landed properties. It is brought to the notice of this Court by producing the relevant revenue record that the landed properties came to the share of husband of the deceased was given to the deceased way back on 04/09/2008 i.e. about a year back to the alleged incident which defuses the theory that the applicant and his mother committed the act on the count of dispute about partition of the ancestral landed properties. Second aspect is whether to believe the dying declaration or not. After the deceased was admitted in Dr.Mama Hospital, at Barshi, at about 7.30 a.m., she had given the history about the accidental burn injuries. If it is so, and this history was given on two 3 occasions till 10.30 a.m., till the parents of the victim came there, then there is controversy about the statement which she has disclosed as to how she sustained bun injuries and later on same dying declaration is given, i.e. also based on the dispute about partition of the landed properties for which documents are already on record and the property is already partitioned. In the premise, a case is made out to enlarge the applicant accused on bail with certain conditions. O R D E R 1. The application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, the applicant not to contact prosecution witnesses. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri-appl-147-10