1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2899 of 2009 (Gangadhar s/o Kondiba Pawade vs. State of Maharashtra) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. P.R.Katneshwarkar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. D.R.Korde, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 18/9/2009 P.C.:- 1. The accused/applicant, brother-in-law of deceased Minakshi Sham Pawade, who is in custody from 18.2.2009, seeks bail in Crime No.56/2009, for an offense under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC. 2. The unfortunate event has taken place in the morning of 18th Feb.,2009, when deceased Meenakshi while in matrimonial home, did not desire to join her father for paternal home and out of rage, 2 present accused/applicant Gangadhar scolded her and asked her to join her father and maternal uncle. Her refusal has resulted in instant dousing her with kerosene and petrol and litting it, resultantly, Meenakshi suffered and succumbed to the injuries on 24th Feb.,2009. In the scenario, the accused Gangadhar and also Sham Pawade suffered burn injuries to 32 per cent. 3. The Counsel alleged, prosecution is not fair. There is subsequent dying declaration of Meenakshi in which she exonerates the accused, recorded by the Head Constable, however, it is not produced. The Counsel submits that it was in a fit of anger the incident has taken place in which the accused Gangadhar cannot be and should not be held responsible and detained. Chargesheet is filed. 4. Taking prima facie survey of above facts, I find that apart 3 from Meenakshi, the event was witnessed by her father Babasaheb and also uncle Bhagwan. In the statements they independently implicated accused as to his role. It may be that on the spur of the moment the incident has taken place, without pre-mediation, however, the fact remains the victim Meenakshi lost her life while in the house with the accused/applicant Gangadhar and she has first in time implicated him to be the author of the incident. Her exonerating him in the subsequent dying declaration, at this stage, will not be a parameter to consider bail. It is a matter of assessment. It may be that the matter may be resolved between the parties as could be seen from the observation of the learned Judge in paragraph no.4 of his order dt.1.8.2009, however, that will not weigh to entertain the bail application. 4 Application rejected. Liberty. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/2899-09crapl