1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1083 OF 2008 Hari Ishwar Patil ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. Mr. V.C.Gupte with Mr. Rajesh B.Parab for the Applicant. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : V. C. DAGA, J. DATED : 4TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. P. P. for the State. 2. By the present application the applicant is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code in C. R. No. 91 of 2007 registered with the Patan Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. This application has been moved after having suffered adverse order dated 12th November, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patan based on the following consideration: "6. However, the record shows that there are reasonable ground 2 and prima facie case against; the Applicant. The circumstances are also material and relevant. The record shows that victim Savita married with Applicant Hari Ishwar Patil on 10.5.2007 i.e. Just before two months before the death of the victim. The contents of dying declaration shows that previously the Applicant had harassed the victim by saying that he wanted divorce as the victim has not taken sufficient education, etc. and therefore on the previous day the victim's father Tukaram Pawar had arrived at the house of the Applicant and he had also placated the Applicant because the victim had narrated all the cruel treatment to her father. 7. In the dying declaration it is specially mentioned that on 27.7.2007 Applicant's mother had gone out it was the day of Bendur festival and at about 11.00 a.m. the Applicant asked the victim to not to resided in his house and to go to her parent' s house because the she has not taken education but the victim specially denied to go to her parents' house and therefore the Applicant took stove and poured kerosene on the victim' s body and set her on fire. Thus, there are allegations of cruelty. The motive or reasons behind making assault are given in the dying declaration. The dying declaration is recorded on the same day immediately and promptly without routing and on the same day victim is died. Thus, in the shape of dying declaration there is material against the Applicant. According to the prosecution, the accused has passed M.Sc. Examination and is son of Police Patil, but the victim had taken education upto 10th Standard. 8. The contents of the panchanama of spot dated 27.7.2007 shows that from the kitchen of the house of the Applicant stove and three partly burnt match sticks and other articles are seized. The record shows that at the time of incident Applicant was alone in the house with the victim and the facts are within his special knowledge and it is a case of custodial death. The contents of Post Mortem Note shows that the victim died of 100% burn injury. On 27.7.2007 panchanama is prepared of burnt clothes of the victim are seized. On 27.7.2007 panchanama is prepared and clothes of the Applicant; are seized which shows that his clothes were not burnt and that he had not suffered any injury and according to the prosecution, accused did not try to save the victim. There are statements of witnesses Tukaram Pawar, Ranjana Pawar and Ganesh Pawar regarding harassment 3 made by the Applicant of the victim. There are statements of other witnesses which shows that immediately the neighbours rushed on the spot and took the victim in the hospital. 9. According to the prosecution, it is a case of custodial death The record shows that there is strong prima facie case in the shape of evidence of harassment dying declaration and circumstantial evidence and it is a case of homicidal death. Moreover, the offence is punishable with death of life imprisonment. On the same day statements are recorded. In view of these circumstances and material it is not just to release the Applicant accused on bail and there being prima facie case I pass following order: -: O R D E R :- The application of the Applicant – accused for bail is rejected.” 4. Looking to the material available on record and the fact that within two months of marriage the incident has occurred and in the light of the presumption against the accused under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, no case is made out to take the view contrary to the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. The application is, therefore, rejected. 6. The trial be treated as expedited. Sd/- (V. C. DAGA, J.)