JUDGMENT 1. - This application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. has been moved by the accused Kachra, who stands charged for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 of the IPC. 2. The deceased Smt. Sanju wife of Mohan was the daughter in-law of the accused Kachra. She was having not good relation with her in-laws and on account of that, was at her maternal house on 21.11.2002. The accused had gone to her house to fetch her. At 11.00 AM on 21.11.2002, Smt. Sanju came out of the house in a burning condition and was rushed to the hospital. 3. According to the prosecution story, the Tehsildar, Salumbhar on 21.11.2002 at 1.30 PM recorded the dying declaration of Smt. Sanju. She stated that she was alone in the house and her father-in-law after pouring the kerosene on her, ignited her. Further she stated that she raised a hue and cry, as a result of which, the persons of neighbour-hood as well as her father Dhanji, uncle Bhagji and mother Kali arrived. She further stated that the fire was doused by the neighbours. No case was registered on this dying declaration. On 23.11.2002 at 11.30 PM, an FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased Dhanji and a case under Section 498-A and 307 of the IPC was registered. The petitioner was arrested and his application for bail stands dismissed by the learned trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the accused-person has argued that the story against the petitioner is completely false and concocted. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner did go with Mangu to the maternal house of the deceased to persuade her to go to her in-laws house but the story of putting her to fire by the petitioner, has no relationship with reality. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention towards the dying declaration, which allegedly was recorded by the Tehsildar and has opposed the bail prayer. 6. I find that time of incident in the dying declaration has been mentioned as 1.30 PM whereas according to the FIR the incident was occurred at 11.00 AM. The alleged dying declaration was recorded in the hospital. 6. I find that time of incident in the dying declaration has been mentioned as 1.30 PM whereas according to the FIR the incident was occurred at 11.00 AM. The alleged dying declaration was recorded in the hospital. Strangely, enough, it was not recorded by the Medical Officer nor it contains an endorsement by any Medical Officer to the effect that Smt. Sanju was in a fit condition to record her statement. Mangilal has been examined under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and he does not say that Srnt. Sanju made any allegation to the effect that Smt. Sanju was put to fire by the accused. According to the dying declaration, it were the neighbours who reached the spot on hearing the cries and they extinguished the fire. Strangely enough, not a single neighbour has been examined by the investigating officer. Smt. Heerki, a sister of the deceased, has been examined as an eye-witness, who allegedly was present in the house. However, the dying declaration specifically says that no member of the family was present in the house at the time of the incident. The prosecution has recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. on 24.11.2002. This statement also does not contain any certification from the Medical Officer to the effect that Smt. Sanju was in a fit state of mind to get her statement recorded. 7. In the totality of circumstances, I find it a fit case in which the petitioner should be admitted to bail. The application is, therefore, allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner Kachra s/o Heera r/o Vill. Amaloda, Tehsil Salumber Dist. Udaipur be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge/Magistrate for his appearance befor court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.Bail Application Allowed. *******