1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 165 /2010 [Shaikh Jameer Shaikh Munshaf vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr S V Sirpurkar, Adv.for applicant Mr A S Fulzele, APP for Respondent CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 9, 2010. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.3/2010 initially reported under sections 307 IPC, which subsequently converted into Section 302 IPC, at Murtizapur Police Station Dist. Akola. 2 It appears that on an earlier occasion, the applicant had moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, who rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated 18.1.2010 in Misc. Cri. Application No.102/2010 making a reference to the fact of 71 per cent burn injuries sustained by the victim and the implication of the applicant/accused in the alleged offence of murder. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant placed reliance on the ruling in Sultan Khan Ramzan Khan vs. State of Maharashtra: (2001 ALL MR (Cri) 2329}, wherein it was observed by this Court that although applicant's name is appearing in dying declaration but 2 no explanation given as to how victim knew name of the applicant, the applicant was held entitled to anticipatory bail, on the ground that there was no material on record to connect the applicant with crime. Another ruling referred to by learned Advocate for the applicant is Kamlabai Jaiswal @ Zende vs . State of Maharashtra : 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 776, wherein since there was no material on record to connect the applicant with the crime in question, it was concluded that there was no reason to deny anticipatory bail to the applicant. It was further observed that if the prosecution is able to connect the applicant showing complicity of the accused in the offence, the prosecution can file an application for cancellation of bail. 4. Learned APP submitted that material collected so far during the course of investigation do prima facie show involvement of the applicant/accused in the incident of murder. It is contended that on 1.1.2010 at about 6.30 hours, the wife of the present applicant had approached victim Salimabi to intimate her to come for working in an agricultural field for collecting cotton; whereas victim Salimabi, on the pretext that she is working in the field of one Jogi and her work would be completed within 2/3 days, refused to attend the work. Thereafter there an altercation between the wife of the applicant and victim, which was amicably settled by the relatives of the victim. Afterwards, the present applicant at about 7.30 a.m. entered in the house of 3 victim, poured kerosene on her person and set Salimabi ablaze. The victim was taken to the Hospital at Murtizapur. Unfortunately, on 3.1.2010, the victim succumbed to her injuries. Learned APP also made reference to statements of relatives of the victim, indicating involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence of murder. Some more statements appear to have been recorded during the course of investigation which also do indicate involvement of the applicant. Under these circumstances and more so when the investigation is underway, an order under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a a shield against serious accusations. The applicant has to surrender and apply for bail on merits. Considering the serious nature of the accusation, I am not inclined to grant bail. Application is rejected. 5. Before saying omega, it is made clear that the observations recorded herein-above are only confined to this Bail Application. The Court below shall not import any observation/ comments in the body of this order for being applied to the decision in Sessions Case. JUDGE sahare