{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1782 OF 2010 1. Dhananjay Vasantrao Sagale Age-35 years, Occ-Labourer 2. Annapurna Vasantrao Sagale Age-65 years, Occ-Household Both R/o Hanuman Nagar, Amalner, Dist-Jalgaon APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicants Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No. 194/2009 registered with Amalner Police Station, Dist-Jalgaon for an offence punishable u/s 302, 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as the {2} applicants are arrested on 21st November 2009 and since then they are in jail. It is informed that in this case, after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 18th February 2010 before the JMFC, Amalner and the trial is also committed to the Court of Sessions. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP. 3. Admittedly, deceased Vasha had got married with applicant No.1, prior to 5 years of the incident dated 25.11.2009. It is alleged in the complaint that the deceased had returned back from her maternal house to her matrimonial house on 24.11.2009 and in the early hours of 25.11.2009, the applicants, by pouring kerosene on her person, set her on fire. In the complaint it is also alleged that there was illegal demand of money from the deceased by the applicants. However, the major allegations against both the accused are that they were insulting and teasing the deceased on the count that she was unable to conceive. 4. The deceased was admitted in civil hospital, Amalner where her three dying declarations are recorded on 25 th November 2009. On 26.11.2009, Varsha succumbed to the burn injuries. 5. According to learned counsel for the applicants three different dying declarations of the deceased are recorded and there {3} is variance in place, mode and manner in which she sustained burn injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “Suresh V/s State of Maharashtra” reported in 2005 Law Suits 254. It is held by this Court that if there are more than one dying declarations, neither side can choose or pick the favourable dying declaration. To test the veracity of the dying declarations of the deceased, opportunity is available to the defence of cross examination of the person, who has recorded the dying declarations. Though there is variance in the dying declarations in respect of place and mode, yet the manner in which the deceased sustained burn injuries, is certain. 6. On perusal of the Post Mortem notes it is clear that the death of the deceased is unnatural. It is nobody’s case that it is a suicidal death. If it is an unnatural death and not suicidal one, then it has to be inferred, at least at this stage, that it is a homicidal death. Only point, which requires consideration, is that as the investigation is over, whether both the applicants be enlarged on bail or not. Allegations against the applicant No.2, who is mother in law of the deceased, are that she had poured kerosene on the person of the deceased. In other words, the role alleged against applicant No.2 is not major but minor one. In the premise, considering the age of applicant No.2, i.e. 65 years, and in view of the fact that now the investigation has been over, she is entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, case of applicant No.1 {4} cannot be treated at par with applicant No.2. Hence, application of applicant No.1 cannot be allowed as allegations against him are directly connected with the death of the deceased. 7. In the result, the application is partly allowed, so far as it relates to applicant No.2. Applicant No.2, be released on bail in connection with CR No.194/2009 registered with Amalner police station, on her furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. However, application of applicant No.1 is hereby rejected. Accordingly the application stands disposed of. 8. Initially, the Investigating Officer had not provided copies of papers of investigation to the learned APP within stipulated time. Therefore, notice to show cause was issued to him. Today, the Investigating Officer has submitted an affidavit showing the cause for delay and has also tendered apology for the delay caused. The affidavit is taken on record and the apology is accepted with a warning not to repeat the same mistake in future. Accordingly, the notice is discharged against the IO. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1782-10