JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. The case registered against the petitioner is for the s under sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The investigation in the case is pending and according to the suggestions of the learned Addl. Advocate General, after investigation, it may be possible that the case may go under section 302 or 304-B IPC. 2. The petitioner was married to the deceased Manju about 9 months prior to her unnatural death which took place on 11th December, 1988. It so happened that on 11th December, 1988, which was a Sunday at about lunch time Manju got burnt in the kitchen. The petitioner rushed and tried to save her and in the process his hands also got burnt. She was immediately taken to the Hospital where both the husband and wife were kept under treatment. The parents of Manju were informed immediately and they also came to the hospital. Information was sent to the police from the hospital and they also reached there. The in-laws of Manju, reside at Jodhpur, they reached Jaipur on the next day. Manju died in the early morning of 12th December. 1988. The dying declaration of Manju was recorded by the Magistrate at 7.00 P. M. on 11.12.88. According to the statement her husband loved her very much and her in-laws were also very happy with her. As for the burns, she said that while cooking the lunch at about 12.30 in the noon, she was pouring kerosene oil in a burning stove and at that time some oil fell on her and the clothes caught fire. She shouted and her husband came from the other room and started extinguishing the lire and in this process his hands were burnt. She was wearing Salwar and Kurta at that time. She specified that her parents had come to meet her prior to her statement and that nobody had burnt her but it was a mere accident on account of her mistake. 3. Investigation under Section 174 Cr. P.C. was made by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur and he inspected the site and recorded the statement of several persons. His conclusion was that Manju did not catch fire from the flames of the stove but she was burnt in suspicious circumstances. 3. Investigation under Section 174 Cr. P.C. was made by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur and he inspected the site and recorded the statement of several persons. His conclusion was that Manju did not catch fire from the flames of the stove but she was burnt in suspicious circumstances. The statement of the deceased as to the manner in which she caught fire could not be accepted because, on inspection of the site it was found that there was no stove at all. Besides this, there was smell of kerosene oil from her body, clothes and specially head. A number of burnt match sticks were also found on the floor of kitchen. Besides, this some marks of blood were found in the grass near the water tanki along with some spots on the wall. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this is a case where the deceased had an opportunity of giving statement before her death and in this she had clearly stated that her husband was not in any manner responsible for her death. It has been contended that both of them were leading a happy married life in proof of which some photographs in affectionate poses have been shown. During one of their visits to Jodhpur, both went to the house of maternal grand parents of Manju and there also some photographs were taken. It has been argued that the petitioner made all efforts to save his wife, first by extinguishing the fire and in the process himself got burnt, and then immediately rushed her to the hospital where she was given proper treat. The parents of Manju were immediately informed. It is pointed out that Manju gave out before the Magistrate that she had already met her parents before her statement and even then she did not depose against the petitioner. No report in the matter was lodged for 13 days and for the first time the father of the deceased made a report on 27th December,1988 and this, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is an after thought. Referring the letters written by Manju to her parents, it is pointed out that they contain merely suggestions that her parents or brother should not visit her house and that she could not herself visit her parents. Referring the letters written by Manju to her parents, it is pointed out that they contain merely suggestions that her parents or brother should not visit her house and that she could not herself visit her parents. It has been contended that this was concealment from the petitioner and if any person could be said to be aggrieved then it was the petitioner who was in the dark and not the deceased. It is argued that when the petitioner can take Manju to her maternal grand parents at Jodhpur then there was no reason as to why he would not allow her to visit her other relations. In another words the contention is that, this is a case of pure and simple accident and now efforts are being made to put the blame on the petitioner. Manju was working as an Assistant Librarian in Maheswari School, Jaipur and it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that being a working woman, the husband could not have kept constant watch and control over her and it is also a made-up story that restrictions were placed on her movements. 5. The learned Addl. Advocate General, has first of all contended that the dying declaration of the deceased cannot be accepted as correct on its face because, on the next day an inspection of the house of the petitioner was made and the theory about pouring kerosene oil in the stove and getting burnt at that time was found to be incorrect. A gas connection was installed there and there was no stove which could be said to be in use for cooking. The stove was found in the Almirah and was covered with dust. A five litre kerosene container was also found in the kitchen around which there were 1 l match sticks out of which 9 were burnt. According to him when the story of the deceased is found to be false then the matter is to be looked at from the other angles and the statement of the deceased cannot be said to be a last word on the subject. 6. The deceased was having about 96% burns on her body and when the neighbours came at their house, she was sitting only in an under-wear, probably because her clothes had got burnt, and she was not making any cries whatsoever. 6. The deceased was having about 96% burns on her body and when the neighbours came at their house, she was sitting only in an under-wear, probably because her clothes had got burnt, and she was not making any cries whatsoever. The person who cried for help was her husband whose shouts attracted the neighbours. It is contended that the girl who met with an accident could not be composed in such a situation. Besides this, there are several letters and slips written by the deceased to her brother and parents. These were sent by hand through common acquaintance living nearby and were meeting the deceased at the school where she was working. She has specifically written that her parent should not come to her house and her brother should also not visit her house. On one occasion Manju was taken ill at the school itself and after that her mother visited her at her house. Manju took pain to write to them to say that her (mother's) visit should be kept secret from her husband. Even on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, there was some confusion as to whether she would go to her parent's house or her brother would come to her house. All this has been pointed out in order to show that Manju was not happy at her husband's house though she had no complaint against her in- laws who were very helpful to her. She could confide in her mother in-law but it was considered proper to keep the same thing concealed from her husband. Ill-treatment and cruelty in other forms has also been suggested by saying that the petitioner used to beat Manju. 7. The question to be decided at this stage is whether the petitioner should be released on anticipatory bail. The learned Addl. Advocate General has placed reliance on the oft quoted decisions in Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1987 SC 737 , Ashok Dhariwal v. State of Raj 1982 RLW 293 : 1982 RLR 523 , in order to suggest that in a matter of suspicious death of a new why married woman, the husband should not be let out on anticipatory bail in a cursory manner. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case the matter has to be decided. 8. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case the matter has to be decided. 8. The undisputed facts are that the deceased was married to the petitioner in March, 1988 She died due to burns within a year of her marriage. In the incident the hands of the petitioner also got burnt and that both were taken to the hospital immediately after the incident. The question as to whether it was an accident or suicide or something else was either known to the deceased or it is something which could be within the knowledge of this petitioner as he alone was in the house with Manju at the time of occurrence. From the circumstances, the theory of the accident cannot be said to be probable at this stage in view of the site inspection conducted by the Magistrate soon after the occurrence. However, this cannot be it conclusive finding at this stage and the matter is discussed only with a view to see whether the petitioner can be granted the facility of anticipatory bail or not. Manju was working in Maheshwari School and that she was corresponding with her parents mainly through small notes through personal messenger. The colleagues of Manju often found her in tears and always complaining that her husband used to quarrel with her and that he did not allow her to meet her parents, she was afraid of her husband. The present case is one where the husband and the wife were the only inmates of the house. When there is suggestion that the matter of burning cannot be said to be accidental because of the circumstances found at the time of inspection. and when there is material to show that the petitioner's attitude was causing imbalance in the mind of the deceased and when it can be said that the petitioner alone is the person who could be said to be knowing the real cause, then in the circumstances, this cannot be said to be a fit case wherein the petitioner can be released on anticipatory bail. 9. The application is dismissed. The petitioner should surrender either before the police station or before the concerned Sessions Judge at an early date.Application dismissed. *******