S. P. Kukday, J. - (1.)This is an application for bail. The facts relevant for decision of this application are that deceased Parveen begum married Shariefa Shah about seven years, prior to the occurrence. Two daughters namely, nilofar and Anjum were born within the wedlock. Previously all the members of the family were residing jointly. However, about one year prior to occurrence, sharief Shah started living separately with his wife and daughters. On 29-9-2004, the deceased came out from the house shouting for help as she was burning. One of the neighbourers Appasaheb douzed the fire by using bundle of grass. After that the applicants and brother in law Mohammed Shah came there. Mohammed Shah then took the deceased to the Hospital at Jalna. At Jama, case papers was prepared showing that deceased sustained burn on account of explosion of stove. The statement was recorded at Jalna Hospital where deceased Parveen did not make allegations against anyone. She was, then, shifted to Ghati Hospital at aurangabad.
(2.)On the next day, i. e. 30th September, 2004 in view of the directions received from the higher authorities, Head Constable Jadhav recorded the statement of parveen. In this statement deceased disclosed that on the day of occurrence at about 7. 00 her husband beat her and went out and after that the applicants Aminabi, mother in law and brother in law Mohammed Shah came to her house and started quarrelling with her because she had not brought dowry from her parents. They threatened to kill her. Deceased specifically mentioned that the ill treatment was being given to her for a long period, in as much as her father was also not allowed to come to her house. The deceased then made allegation that at the time of occurrence the applicant No. 2 Mohammed Shah and her husband Sharief Khan poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. She made it clear that the earlier statement was recorded under pressure and, as such, she had not disclosed true facts. The statement was followed by another statement recorded on the same day by the Executive Magistrate. In that statement also, deceased reiterated her allegation against these persons. On the basis of second statement offence came be to be registered against the applicants and others under sections 307 and 498-A read with section 34 I. P. C.
(3.)During the course of investigation, the applicant was released on anticipatory bail. However, Parveen expired on 12th October, 2004. Therefore, penal section was changed to section 302 I. P. C. The prosecution made an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that applicant is not co-operating with the Investigating Officer. The anticipatory bail granted earlier was, therefore, cancelled by the trial Court. The order was challenged in this Court by preferring Criminal Application No. 1986/2005, however, the order of the trial Court is maintained.