Kailabai Alias Kailashi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The applicant has filed this third application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The earlier ones have been dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 29/1/19 and 17/5/19 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.3984/19 and 16772/19 respectively.

The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Hastinapur, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.73/18 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 307 and 302 of the IPC.

Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that on 3/10/18, at about 7.30 PM, she poured kerosene oil upon her daughter-in-law and ignited her, who died after sustaining 95-100% burn injuries.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated. She is in custody since 4/10/18. Charge-sheet has been filed. No further custodial interrogation is required. The dying declaration given by the deceased does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as there are discrepancies with regard to time of its recording, as well as, condition of the patient as to whether she was in a position to depose or not. There are contradictions in the evidence of Dr.Lokesh Purohit (PW1). Besides, Rambaran (PW2) and Smt. Kiran (PW4), respectively husband and sister-in-law of the deceased have not supported the prosecution version. The applicant is a permanent resident of Village Hastinapur, District Gwalior and there is no likelihood of her absconsion, if released on bail. With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application and prayed for its rejection contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is submitted that the deceased in her dying declaration, as well as, statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that she had been burned by the applicant only. Therefore prima facie complicity of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Besides, credibility of the dying declaration is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudged at this stage. The witnesses who have not supported the prosecution version are interested witnesses. Accordingly, it is submitted that no indulgence is warranted.

Considering the nature of allegations and gravity of offence, in the opinion of this Court, no case for grant of bail is made out.

The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.