IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1338 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1338 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1338 OF 2008 Sau Alka Chandrakant Gaikwad ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Ujwal Agandsurve, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr S. R. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Applicant. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 2.6.2008. DATED: 2.6.2008. DATED: 2.6.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and the material available on record. 3. The applicant, after having suffered adverse order dated 11.4.2008 at the hand of the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge -1 Sholapur is seeking bail in C.R.No. 19 of 2008 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Sholapur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 4. The observations made by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sholapur while rejecting application are as under:- "After perusal of investigation papers dying declaration of Mangal was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate and by police. She has specifically stated that applicant and her husband co-accused have poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Statements of Kum. Babita, Kumar Sagar, Smt. Yallubai Gaikwad go to show that they have also mentioned in their statements that accused and her husband co-accused have poured kerosene on the person of Mangal and set her on fire. Perused statement of Sunil Tonape, Smt. Gangabai Rajanbas, Tuikaram Gaikwad, Shetya Gaikwad. They supported the contention of other witnesses. Deceased Mangal sustained 58% burn and she died. Allegations against applicant is very serious under Section 302 of I.P.C. Advocate Shri Thobade for the applicant has placed reliance on authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court Smt. Kamla Vs. state of Punjab, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 374. I have carefully gone through the authority, but this authority is not helpful for the applicant at this stage for bail because Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed in respect of number of dying declaration deciding the matter. Therefore, at this stage, it is not proper and desirable to discuss this authority. If applicant released on bail, definitely, she will try to bring pressure on the witnesses for likely to absconding jurisdiction of the Court and it is not fit case to grant bail to applicant accused, even though applicant is ready to abide any conditions imposed by the Court." 5. Having seen the aforesaid finding and examined the prima facie role of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence, no case is made out to take view other than the view taken by the Trial Court. 6. In the result, the present application stands rejected. 7. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)