B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the second successive bail application filed by the petitioner-accused, who is the husband of deceased-Hetalben. ( 2 ) AN FIR came to be lodged by deceased-Hetalben, wife of the petitioner- accused against her husband and her in- laws Mahadevbhai and Vajiben for the offence under Section 498 (A) and 114 of ipc before Radhanpur Police Station, which is registered as CR No. 12 of 2002 for the incident in question which took place on 9. 2. 2002 at about 10. 30 p. m. It is stated in the FIR that she got married with the petitioner before two years but she has no issue. She was staying with her husband, in-laws and brother-in-law in a joint family at Varahi. ( 3 ) ON the day of incident i. e. on 9. 2. 2002 at about 8. 30 P. M. all the family members were at home and deceased- hetalben was also present. Some talks were going on between family members of her husband. She heard the talks and laughed at it. Thereupon her husband- petitioner accused got annoyed and slapped on her face. Because of that blood had come out from her nose. She started crying. Her husband told her not to cry but she could not stop because of bleeding injury received by her. She went inside the house with kerosene tin and poured it on her and set herself at blaze. Thereupon, her in-laws came and extinguished the fire. ( 4 ) IT is further stated in the FIR that since her marriage, her husband was having doubt about her chastity and character and because of that for no reason she was physically and mentally assaulted. Her mother-in-law Vajiben and father-in- law Mahadevbhai were instigating her husband. She had not stated about the cruelty meted out to her parents prior to the incident but when she was brought to the hospital after the incident, she narrated the same to her parents. She got 80-95% of burns injuries and after lodging fir she succumbed to the burns injuries on 14. 2. 2002. Therefore, section 306 of IPC was added. ( 5 ) IT may be stated that prior to this application, the present petitioner-accused had filed joint Criminal Misc. Application no. She got 80-95% of burns injuries and after lodging fir she succumbed to the burns injuries on 14. 2. 2002. Therefore, section 306 of IPC was added. ( 5 ) IT may be stated that prior to this application, the present petitioner-accused had filed joint Criminal Misc. Application no. 1952/02 for anticipatory bail before this court, which was dismissed as not pressed qua the present petitioner-accused and his mother and father were granted anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the present petitioner-accused came to be arrested on 8. 4. 2002. He preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 142 of 2002 for bail before the learned Trial Judge, which was rejected on 18. 4. 2002 considering the statement of Dharamsinh Moghabhai, who took the deceased from Radhanpur to Civil hospital and also on the ground that hardly within a period of 2 years of their marriage, deceased committed suicide. Therefore, the court raised presumption under Section 113a of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the learned Additional sessions Judge rejected such bail application by his order dated 18. 4. 2002. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner- accused filed Criminal Misc. Application no. 2575/02 through his advocate mr. Premal Nanavati. Initially, notice was ordered to be issued on that application and 1. 0. was directed to remain present with all case papers. Having perused the case papers Mr. Nanavati, learned counsel sought permission to withdraw that petition with liberty to file fresh petition before the Trial Court after submission of charge sheet. Permission was accordingly granted and the said petition was dismissed by this court on 10. 5. 2002. ( 6 ) THE police filed charge sheet in this case on 20. 5. 2002, therefore, once again fresh bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 216/02 was filed by the petitioner-accused before the Additional sessions Judge, Deesa, who by his impugned judgment and order dated 13. 6. 2002 rejected the said bail petition on the ground that earlier bail application filed by the petitioner-accused was rejected by him as well as by the High Court and mere filing of charge sheet is no change in the circumstances. Accordingly, by an impugned order dated 13. 6. 2002 the learned Judge rejected that bail application. Hence, this second bail application before this court. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. Modi for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of accidental death. In support of his submission Mr. Accordingly, by an impugned order dated 13. 6. 2002 the learned Judge rejected that bail application. Hence, this second bail application before this court. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. Modi for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of accidental death. In support of his submission Mr. Modi has tried to rely upon the statement dated 9. 2. 2002 made by the decoased-Hetalben before the police as well as her dying declaration recorded before the Executive Magistrate on the next date i. e. 10. 2. 2002 wherein, theory of accident was tried to be made out. It is stated in those statements by deceased-Hetalben that when she was preparing tea in her house on the primus her sari caught fire. On hearing her shouts her in-laws, husband, brother-in-law, uncle-in-law and other elderly people, whose names are not known to came her and extinguished the fire and took her to Radhanpur government Hospital in jeep. However, it appears that she lodged her FIR before the police for the first time on 12. 2. 2002 at 12. 15 p. m. i. e. after 3 days of the incident, wherein, she has clearly stated that she had no issue during her 2 years married life. Her husband was always having doubt about her character and chastity and for no reasons she was physically and mentally assaulted by her husband and her in-laws were instigating her husband. On the day of incident when she laughed at hearing the talks, which were going on inside the house, her husband got annoyed and slapped her because of that she had bleeding nose injuries. When she started crying her husband asked her not to cry but she could not stop crying because of bleeding injury and she went inside the house, poured kerosene and set fire on herself. When she lodged her FIR she was fully conscious. Postmortem report shows that she got 1st to 3rd degree burns on her face, neck, chest, upper abdomen, left whole hand, palm, whole right hand and palm, both legs, face, upper part and back. It was a case of 95% burns injuries. ( 8 ) THUS, at this stage, before this court there are two sets of evidences; one in the form of her statement dated 9. 2. 2002 and another one is her dying declaration made on 10. 2. It was a case of 95% burns injuries. ( 8 ) THUS, at this stage, before this court there are two sets of evidences; one in the form of her statement dated 9. 2. 2002 and another one is her dying declaration made on 10. 2. 2002 wherein she stated about the theory of accidental burns injuries. However, on 12. 2. 2002 when her relatives came, she mustered courage and narrated the true story before the police in her FIR. If it was a mere accident, then there would not have been 95% burns injuries, when her in-laws and other elderly persons immediately claim to have extinguished the fire. Panchnama of the scene of offence shows that kerosene was found on the ground floor in a radius of about 3 feet having strong smell of it. This is completely a different version, which falsifiesner first version alleged to have been narrated by the deceased-Hetalben before the police and Executive Magistrate. It is surprising to note that her first statement dated 9. 2. 2002 and the second statement dated 10. 2. 2002 made before the executive Magistrate were signed by her. As stated earlier, the postmortem notes clearly goes to show that her both hands were fully burnt, therefore, it would not be possible for her to sign either her first statement dated 9. 2. 2002 or second dying declaration dated 10. 2. 2002. One more document, which is sought to be relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner mr. Modi is the certificate of the doctor dated 28. 2. 2002 at page No. 33 of the petition. This shows that the history was given by Prabhubhai Iswarbhai Panchal, uncle-in-law of the deceased. Thus, it clearly appears that after the incident she was totally under the control of her in-laws and when her relatives came then only mustered courage and narrated the real story before the police in her FIR. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that there is a strong prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC. The learned judge was right in raising the presumption against the accused. Panchnama of scene of incident shows that kitchen was inside the house, where gas was there. Then the question is why should she prepare tea on primus and that too in osri and not in kitchen. The learned judge was right in raising the presumption against the accused. Panchnama of scene of incident shows that kitchen was inside the house, where gas was there. Then the question is why should she prepare tea on primus and that too in osri and not in kitchen. This and other attending circumstances also do not help the accused, therefore, accidental theory has to be ruled out, at this stage. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, I may make it clear that i have to pass such a detailed order because Mr. Modi insisted for a reasoned order dealing with all his contentions raised on merits. I also make it clear that any observations made by this court in this order shall not come in the way of the accused at the time of Trial. It goes without saying that the Trial Court has to decide the case on the strength of the evidence led before it and not on the basis of any observations made by this court while deciding the bail application. ( 11 ) AT this stage, I must also say that one more submission was tried to be made by Mr. Modi that even assuming for the sake of argument that she had committed suicide then also there is no evidence regarding abetment. This submission of mr. Modi cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the conduct of the accused just prior to the incident and within 2 years of married life was sufficient. First he slapped his wife only because she laughed at their talks in the house and on receiving bleeding injuries on nose when she started crying she was scolded by her husband not to cry. In such type of situation if young woman hardly aged about 20 years commits suicide, then prima facie it can be said to be a case of abetment. Thus, prima facie, I am convinced that offence under section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant-accused. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion, this application fails and is summarily rejected. .