A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) SMT. Shabana Anjum was married to Shri Mazhar-il-Islam on 16. 11. 1994 according to Muslim rites and Ceremonies. Out of this wedlock, two children, namely, Amrin and Riza were born. They are aged about 9 years and 5 years respectively as on the date of incident. e. 11. 10. 2005. ( 2 ) ON 11. 10. 2005, the fateful day, Smt. Shabana Anjum was brought to the guru Teg Bahadur Hospital with 60 to 65% serious burn injuries. After receiving this information police also reached there and recorded her statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was treated as FIR. As per this statement time of occurrence of incident was 3. 20 p. m. Information received at police Station was at 3. 35 p. m. and her statement was recorded at 5. 15 p. m. when doctors opined that she was fit for statement. The relevant para of the said statement is reproduced below as per which her husband was harassing her for last several months before this incident: "today on 11. 10. 2005 at about 3. 20 p. m. I was present at my house and my both the daughters were playing in Verandah outside the room. My husband was harassing me for the last several months and he used to go away after leaving me alone, today my husband, his elder brother zafar-ul-Islam came downstairs from the roof and Zafur-ul-Islam who is my jeth was having bottle of oil and Zafar-ul-Islam sprinkled the oil upon me without giving me the chance of taking care of me and my husband threw the match-stick after litting on fire the same and from this my clothes caught fire. My father-in-law Waheed Ahmed s/o. late Ismail Khan who was standing outside the room was saying that she should be finished today thereafter I will see everything, since she does not understand the things. Outside the room my both the daughters were seeing the incident, these people have set me on fire after pouring kerosene oil with the intention to kill me, legal action be taken against these people. My statement is written and read over to me which is correct. RTI Shabana anjum attested S.. " ( 3 ) IN her statement she narrated that at 3. My statement is written and read over to me which is correct. RTI Shabana anjum attested S.. " ( 3 ) IN her statement she narrated that at 3. 20 p. m. she was present at her house and her two daughters were playing in varanda outside the room. At that time her husband and elder brother (Jeth) came down from the downstairs from the roof and her Jeth who was having bottle of oil and her husband sprinkled the oil upon her and thrown the match-stick after lighting on fire on her because of which her clothes got fire. Her father-in-law was also standing outside the room and was saying that she should be finished today and he would see everything. The incident was witnessed by her daughters. On this statement FIR No. 615/2005 under Section 307/34, 1pc was registered against her husband, brother-in-law as well as father-in-law. She remained in hospital till 11. 11. 2005 when she was discharged. However, she succumbed to her injuries and died on 5. 12. 2005 at her parental home. On her death Section 302 has also been added to the FIR treating it a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. It may be mentioned here that at the same time statements, of two daughters of the complainant were also recorded who gave identical version as given by the complainant regarding burning of the complainant by her husband and brother-in-law. ( 4 ) SHRI Wahid Ahmed, father-in-law of the petitioner has been arrested and he is in judicial custody since 12. 10. 2005. Bail application No. 38 of 2006 is moved by him for grant of bail. Zafar-ul-Islam (Jeth) has not been arrested so far. He has moved bail application No. 3143/2005 under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail. In this application interim protection was granted to him on 2. 12. 2005 and the application has come up after notice. This is how both the applications have been heard together. ( 5 ) MR.. U. Khan, Sr. Advocate argued the matter on behalf of father-in-law and Mr. K. B. Andley, Sr. Advocate argued the matter for brother-in-law. On behalf of the respondent/state Mr. Sunil Sharma submitted his arguments. ( 6 ) THE submission of Mr.. This is how both the applications have been heard together. ( 5 ) MR.. U. Khan, Sr. Advocate argued the matter on behalf of father-in-law and Mr. K. B. Andley, Sr. Advocate argued the matter for brother-in-law. On behalf of the respondent/state Mr. Sunil Sharma submitted his arguments. ( 6 ) THE submission of Mr.. U. Khan was that there were no allegations of father-in-law's participation in the alleged crime; the allegation was only of exhortation and that too when the crime had already been committed; he is 63 years of age and is a retired person and was settled in Dehradun who would come to his son of and on and was, therefore, not interfering with the affairs between son and wife (complainant); one of the two children had not attributed anything to the father-in-law of the complainant. He also submitted that there were some disputes between the complainant and her husband (applicant's son) and they were not on good terms and, therefore, her husband had divorced the complainant and given this information of divorce to the police station on the same day. e. in the morning at 11. 30 a. m. on 11. 10. 2005 to Police Station, Seelam Pur apprehending above mischief at the hands of the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant was duly discharged on 11. 11. 2005 and died much thereafter. e. on 5. 12. 2005 and the cause of death was not the burn injuries suffered by her but because of septicemia. e. infection which occurred due to carelessness for not taking proper care and proper medication. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Muni v. State of Tamil Nadu, II (2006) SLT 438=2006 1 AD (Cr.) sc 469, wherein the Supreme Court had held that as husband and wife were not in good terms, dying declaration of the wife should not be believed as because of strained relations the deceased had been nurturing a grudge against her husband for a long time, she while committing suicide herself may try to implicate him so as to make his life miserable. ( 7 ) MR. ( 7 ) MR. K. B. Andley additionally argued that when the complainant had survived for such a long time, it was not a case that she was unfit to make a statement, the statement should have been recorded in the presence of some independent witness or SDM, etc. and not much credence should be given to such a statement. He further submitted that investigation was over and his client was not needed for any interrogation and, therefore, there was no purpose to take him into custody and therefore anticipatory bail given to him should be confirmed. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that as on the date when the complainant was brought to Hospital with 60-65% injuries, her statement was recorded and the case was registered under Section 307, IPC. Had she survived, case under Section 307, IPC would have proceeded and she would have herself deposed about the incident to the Court at the time of trial. However, since she unfortunately died the statement is now to be treated as dying declaration and such a dying declaration has to be given the credence in the circumstances of the case, more particularly when two minor daughters had given the statement corroborating her version. His further submission was that charge against the applicants was of murder which was grave and, therefore, the applicants were not entitled to bail. ( 9 ) AFTER considering the submissions of both the parties, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these applications. As pointed out above, within a couple of hours from the time of incident, statement of complainant was recorded. She categorically blamed her husband and brother-in-law pouring oil upon her and throwing live match-stick and thereby burning her. She has also stated that at that time her father-in-law was standing outside the room and was saying that she should be finished. Prima facie this role attributed to father-in-law is contemporaneous with the acts attributed to her husband and brother-in-law and not after the incident when FIR is read as a whole. More significantly, complainant stated that both the daughters had seen the incident. Statements of two daughters were recorded there and then. One daughter is 9 years of age and she is capable of understanding as to what had happened. More significantly, complainant stated that both the daughters had seen the incident. Statements of two daughters were recorded there and then. One daughter is 9 years of age and she is capable of understanding as to what had happened. There was nobody at that time who could tutor the two daughters. The daughters would not unnecessarily implicate their father, uncle and grand father. On the death of the complainant this statement becomes dying declaration. At this stage, it is not for me to comment upon the admissibility of this dying declaration or discard the statements of the two daughters. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the totality of the circumstances and gravity of the matter, 1 am of the view that the applicants are not entitled to bail at this stage. Their applications are rejected. Needless to mention, the observations are tentative and matter is looked into only from the point of view of disposing of the bail applications of the applicants and will have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Bail Applications rejected.