1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1304 of 2010 Sanjay v. State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr V.M. Deshpande, Adv for applicant Mr Adgokar, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 1st September 2010 1. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 135/2010 registered with Police Station, Chandurbazar for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the alleged dying declaration was recorded on 25.5.2010 which indicated that on 24.5.2010 at about 09.30 pm there was quarrel between the spouses on the domestic issue. Husband beat his wife and asked her to go anywhere and thereafter, angered by the incident, wife Archana committed suicide by burning herself. It is contended that applicant-husband extinguished fire and took Archana (his wife) to hospital. The wife Archana alleged that she was harassed by her husband (applicant). Although dying declaration was recorded on 25.5.2010, FIR came to be lodged on 1.7.2010. It is submitted that there was no plausible explanation for delay in lodging FIR and most 2 of the witnesses whose statements have been recorded, are relatives of wife Archana and none of them knows about the incident. It is also brought to my notice that on 16.7.2010, learned Magistrate concerned had refused to grant PCR and instead, granted MCR on the ground that investigation is already over into the alleged offences. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 15.7.2010 and charge-sheet is not yet filed. It is likely to be filed soon. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail. 3. Application is opposed on the ground that the applicant may tamper with the prosecution evidence. 4. The evidence is mainly in the nature of dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Amravati and since almost all the witnesses whose statements are recorded are relatives of deceased Archana, there is no question of alluring or pressurising them. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that there are chances of applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence. In my opinion, conditional bail can be granted to the applicant. Hence, the following order. 5. Applicant be released on bail upon executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two or more sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner and he will not communicate with any of the prosecution witnesses. Applicant shall attend each date of trial unless specifically exempted by the trial Court. Applicant shall leave his fixed address with telephone/cellphone 3 number (if any) with the Investigating Officer as also the trial Court concerned and shall inform change therein, if any, in future. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Hamdast granted. Judge. hsj