Judgment:
Sat Pal, J.
(1) This is a petition under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short called 'the Code') for grant of bail.
(2) Briefly stated, a case was registered against the petitioner under section 302/307/ 498A Ipc, on the allegations that deceased Smt. Chandra was set ablaze after pouring kerosene oil by her husband, the brother-in-law (Devar), (the petitioner in this case) and her father-in-law.
(3) Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in the present case the deceased is alleged to have been burnt on 7th March, 1993 and in her first statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, she stated that she was burnt due to accidental fire. In her first statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 7th March, 1993 she repeated the same thing. However, in her second statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 8th March, 1993, she stated that her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law have set her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her person. Learned counsel, thereforee, contended that the second dying declaration before the Sub Divisional Magistrate was an after thought and has been given by the deceased at the instance of her parents. ' He, thereforee, contended that in view of the contradictory statement of the deceased in her various statements, the petitioner should be released on bail. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the three judgments of this Court Bhanwar Pal Singh vs State(Delhi Administration), 1992 Jcc 146, Bhoorey vs State -Cr.M(M)932/92 decided on 19th January, 1993 and Smt. Kailash Rani and another vs State (Delhi Administration) - Cr.M(M) 2631/91,decided on 13thJanuary, 1993.
(4) Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that just a month before the date of occurrence the deceased filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in- law, and brother-in-law, who is the petitioner. He further drew my attention to the second dying declaration wherein the deceased has stated that in her earlier statement she had not blamed anyone as her in-laws had forced her saying that in case she would make any statement against them, they would get her brother and sister kidnapped and would take revenge. He, thereforee, contended that keeping in view of the Explanationn given by the deceased in her second dying declaration before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyan & Anr. vs State of Andhra Pradesh, : 1993CriLJ1635 .
(5) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case a young lady is alleged to have been burnt and even a month before the date of occurrence she had filed a complaint before Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi against her in-laws including the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also have no relevance to the facts of the present case, keeping in view the Explanationn given by the deceased in her second dying declaration recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate that due to threat given by her in-laws she had not stated the true facts in the earlier statement, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
(6) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(7) The observations given hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.