1 BA 379-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.379 OF 2011 Harinder Balmukund Singh & anr. ..Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.T.A.Thakur, Advocate, for the Applicants Ms Alpa T. Javeri, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 3RD MAY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for bail by husband and his brother in the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim Anjani, wife of applicant Harinder Singh died of burn injuries on 30th December, 2010. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is dying declaration of the 2 BA 379-2011 victim which shows that stove on which Anjani was trying to heat water for having bath burst and therefore, she caught fire. The learned APP rightly points out that panchanama of the spot shows that there was no reason for the victim to heat water on stove when there were Geyser and Gas cylinder in the house. The learned Counsel for the applicants states that geyser was not in the bath room of the victim but on the first floor of the house where her mother-in-law stays, though the dying declaration on which the learned Counsel for the applicants wants to rely recites that the victim had stated that she fell from stairs and injured herself indicating that there was no bar for her using the first floor facilities. This was possibly to explain injury on the victim as a result of victim being hit by a brick thrown at victim by applicant. The learned APP points out stove itself was not in use as per panchanama of the spot. Therefore, there is no question of 3 BA 379-2011 victim's suffering any injury, due to stove burst. 3. That the victim's father-in-law Balmukund Bhola Singh was admitted to bail is not relevant, since Balmukund Singh had taken the victim to hospital, Brother-in-law Naginder Singh was shown to have only assisted the accused to abscond and so was bailed out. The learned APP also points out that the first informant had stated before the police on 16th February, 2011 that the accused had been pressurizing the first informant to withdraw her case. Considering this, applicants' being bailed out is out of question. 4. Bail Application is rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)