JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Criminal Application No. 1880 of 2002 is filed by the applicant-State and Criminal Application No. 1386 of 2002 is filed by the father of the deceased Shahista Parveen for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail granted to the non-applicants by an order dated 2-5-2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Criminal Application No. 178 of 2002 filed by the present non-applicants. 3. The deceased Shahista was married to present non-applicant No. 3 - Zakaullan Khan on 2-6-2001. On 20-4-2002, an incident took place in which Shahista was set on fire. It appears from the record that on 20-4-2002, the police has recorded the statement of the deceased Shahista. In this statement, she has stated that two goondas had carried her from her house and set her on fire. A dying declaration dated 20-4-2002 recorded by the Executive Magistrate is to the same effect. However, when her father and relatives arrived on 21-4-2002, Shahista gave another statement in the Irwin Hospital where she was admitted. She has stated that she was thrown out of the house in the morning by Respondent No. 3 and had been set on fire by her brother-in-laws i.e. non-applicant Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It is her contention that when she had left the house for passing urine, she was carried near Panjapura Masjid by her brother-in-laws, out of whom two were masked and they had set her on fire. On 24-4-2002, she has given another dying declaration to the Executive Magistrate in which she has stated that she was brought out of the house by non-applicant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 and set on fire by her husband, who lit the match stick. The police has recorded the spot panchnama, which supports the theory that she was set on fire near Panjapura Masjid. 4. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, granted anticipatory bail to all the non-applicants, who apart from the aforesaid also included lady members of the house including mother-in-law, two sister-in-laws and father-in-law. 5. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. He has not specifically referred to the contents of the dying declarations of Shahista dated 21-4-2002 and 24-4-2002. A perusal of the same would indicate that there was some specific role attributed to non-applicant Nos. 5. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. He has not specifically referred to the contents of the dying declarations of Shahista dated 21-4-2002 and 24-4-2002. A perusal of the same would indicate that there was some specific role attributed to non-applicant Nos. 4 to 9 in the dying declaration dated 21-4-2002 and non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 in the dying declaration dated 24-4-2002. 5-A The crime committed was a very serious crime and required in-depth investigation of all aspects including aspect of conspiracy, if any. It was not a proper case for grant of anticipatory bail, particularly ignoring the particulars of dying declarations dated 21-4-2002 and 24-4-2002. The Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, ought to have taken into account that the investigation has just commenced and it was not the proper case at the moment to start appreciating the statements made by the deceased Shahista and to prevent the in-depth investigation by grant of anticipatory bail. From the facts of the case, it is clear that this was not a case of accidental death but a case of murder. In a case of this nature where the conspiracies are hatched behind closed doors, the police must be given reasonable opportunity of investigation by custodial interrogation. In my opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, committed a gross error in granting anticipatory bail, particularly to applicant Nos. 3 to 9 to whom direct overtacts have been attributed in such a serious matter. 6. I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this is a fit case where the impugned order ought to be set aside atleast against non-applicant Nos. 3 to 9, who were directly attributed the act of causing burns. I am aware that there are discrepancies in the dying declarations but the application for anticipatory bail was filed as early as on 23-4-2002 i.e. even before the death of Shahista Parveen and at the very commencement of the investigation. I find that the stage for consideration of such an application for anticipatory bail was not the proper stage for going into the question of discrepancies in the dying declarations of Shahista Parveen. 7. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, insofar it grants anticipatory bail to non-applicant Nos. 3 to 9 is quashed and set aside. 7. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, insofar it grants anticipatory bail to non-applicant Nos. 3 to 9 is quashed and set aside. It is made absolutely clear that the observations made in this judgment will not weigh with the Court in granting regular bail, if the application is made by any of these non-applicants and also not be taken into account at the stage of trial. 8. Rule is made partially absolute accordingly, in both these criminal applications. -----