1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3336/2009 ( Pandurang Tukaram Awchar and one .vs. State of Mah. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for Applicants Mr. A.D. Sonak, APP for Respondent. .... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 21, 2009 Heard. By the present application, the applicants who are respectively brother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased Sandhya who had died on 12.4.2009 in consequent to an incident which had taken place on 11.4.2009 at the matrimonial house of allegedly of setting her on fire and for which Crime No. 26/2009 for commission of offence under Sections 302, 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered with Dongaon Police Station, district Buldana, has prayed for bail. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned APP on the count of dying declaration of the deceased recorded revealing the presence of applicant no.2 with role played by her in relevant episode and statement to the neighbours recorded also revealing the presence of applicant no.1 at the place of incident i.e. in house in which the incident had taken place. The learned APP has thus urged involvement of applicants or at least 2 that of applicant no.2 and the presence of applicant no.1 considered in a brutal manner in which within a period of one year after marriage deceased was burnt and so also the petty reason for which such an act was committed on the eventful day itself dis-entitles bail to applicants and as such application be rejected. The learned counsel for the applicants has countered the said submission by urging that even prima facie look at the relevant material reveals the applicants being subsequently roped in the crime and the same being apparent as none of them was named in FIR and even the alleged complicity of applicant no.2 being dependent upon the statement of the witnesses recorded after significant delay of 7 days after the incident and no plausible explanation for the same being forthcoming from prosecution, the applicants who were not residents of house in which incident has taken place, deserve to be released on bail. The perusal of the charge sheet reveals of there being substance in such submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants as the delay in recording the statement of the said witnesses prima facie is not found explained in the same. Having regard to same and that applicant no.2 is a woman, both the applicants were not the residents of the place at which the incident had taken place, both the applicants have made out a case for exercising a discretion in favour of grant of bail having regard to the character of the prosecution material pointed and there being rare chances of the applicants fleeing away in view of themselves having a permanent place of abode and 3 investigation being complete and the charge sheet being filed. Both the applicants are directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 26/2009 upon furnishing a PR bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one and more sureties for making the said amount and subject to the conditions that of themselves (i) not indulging in any activities in tampering with the prosecution evidence by contacting either directly or indirectly the prosecution witnesses in any manner, (ii) staying at the addresses mentioned by them in the application and not changing the same without the permission of the Court and (iii) not committing any offence while being on bail. Hamdast allowed. Application stands disposed of. In view of disposal of main application, incidental Criminal Application No. 242 of 2009 also stands disposed of . JUDGE halwai