( 1 ) cria5011.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5011 OF 2010 Prabhakar s/o. Dagu Sonwane .. Applicant Age. 60 years, Occ. Retired, R/o. Undirwadi, Tq. Yeola, Dist. Nasik. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 23.12.2010 P.C. :- 1. The application is for bail. 2. The applicant is father of the daughter-in-law of the deceased. There were matrimonial disputes between his daughter on one hand and her husband along with relatives on the other hand. The husband of his daughter was not ready to ( 2 ) cria5011.10 allow her to enter matrimonial house. The applicant took his daughter – Rohini to house of the deceased on 13th February, 2010. It is alleged that in the relevant evening the applicant requested the victim to allow his daughter to co- habit with her husband. The applicant allegedly told the victim that if he was not going to allow her to co-habit with the husband in the matrimonial home, then he shall immediately pay amount of Rs. 3 lakhs which was the expenditure of the marriage. In the course of the conversation, the applicant threatened the deceased that if the amount will not be paid expeditiously, then he shall see what would happen. The deceased refused to part with such demanded amount. Immediately, thereafter, the applicant is said to have taken out a bottle containing inflammable liquid which is referred in the dying declaration of the victim as ‘petrol’ and had poured on the person of the deceased from the head. The applicant then immediately lighted a match- stick and flung it on the person of deceased Sitaram Mali. The victim (Sitaram Mali) died as a result of extensive burn injuries sustained by him during the course of the incident. ( 3 ) cria5011.10 3. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that there could not be any intention to cause death of the victim. It is argued that the applicant was intending to patch up the matrimonial dispute and reach his daughter to the house of her husband. It is contended that the incident occurred at the spur of moment and therefore the means-rea qua the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is prima facie absent. Consequently, the learned advocate submits that the applicant deserves bail. The learned A.P.P. objects the grant of bail. 4. It prima facie appears that the applicant was absconding and the charge-sheet was filed against him under section 299 of the Cr.P.C., showing him as absconding accused along with other accused. What appears from the recitals of the F.I.R. and the investigation papers is that the applicant went to the house of the victim along with his daughter and other family members with the intention to settle the score, because the victim had declined to accept his daughter in the matrimonial home. The very fact that the applicant had carried with him a bottle containing inflammable fluid is an ( 4 ) cria5011.10 indicative of his preparation to cause death of the victim, in case amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was not paid by him. It is true that the report of the Assistant Chemical Analyzer shows presence of kerosene residue on the burnt pieces of clothe found on person of the deceased. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the deceased had no means to gather whether it was petrol or kerosene when the dying declaration was recorded. It appears that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded immediately after the incident and further there is eye witness account available in the context of the alleged incident. In view of the fact that the applicant had visited the house of the deceased with preparation to take the drastic step to eliminate the deceased, if demand of Rs. 3 lakhs was not fulfilled, itself indicates, prima facie, his intention to cause the homicidal death. No case is made out, therefore, to grant discretionary relief of bail and as such the application is dismissed. 5. The trial of the Sessions Case shall be expedited and be completed by the Sessions Court within a period of ( 5 ) cria5011.10 nine months, as far as possible. 6. The observations in this order be not considered while deciding the Sessions Case on merit. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/DEC10/cria5011.10