JUDGMENT Anoop Chitkara, J. - ASI Vinod Kumar, Investigating Officer, Police Station Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P., was present on the last date, when the matter was heard. He had filed status report and had also brought the police file. I have seen the status report as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same stands returned to the police official. Status report is also taken on record. 2. I have gone through the status reports and heard learned counsel for the parties. The present petition is under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 282 of 2018, dated 14.11.2018, registered at Police Station Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case police report stands filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C, 1973. 3. The gist of the prosecution case necessary for the purpose of deciding this bail application is as follows: (a) Petitioner Ashok Kumar was married to the victim/deceased around six years before her death. (b) The allegations against the accused are that he would quarrel with his wife under the state of intoxication. (c) Due to this her parents had taken her away to their home where she gave birth to a daughter. (d) Subsequently the matter was reconciled and she went back to the house of her husband. (e) On 12.11.2018 at around 9 - 9.30 p.m. the accused was again under the influence of liquor and some altercations took place with his wife in the kitchen of the house. (f) The allegations are that thereafter he poured kerosene oil on his wife and put her on fire. (g) Subsequently she was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. (h) Before her death the Investigating Officer wanted to record her statement anticipating that in case she succumbs to her injuries then the said piece of evidence may be used under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For this purpose on 13.11.2018 he made an application to the Medical Officer who was treating the victim and sought endorsement of the Medical Officer about her condition to give the statement. On this application an endorsement was made by the Medical Officer wherein it was stated "fit for statement". For this purpose on 13.11.2018 he made an application to the Medical Officer who was treating the victim and sought endorsement of the Medical Officer about her condition to give the statement. On this application an endorsement was made by the Medical Officer wherein it was stated "fit for statement". (i) On the same day the victim succumbed to her injuries on her way to PGI Chandigarh. (j) In this statement which contains the left foot thumb impression the victim Jyoti Devi wife of the present petitioner states as follows: "Stated that I am a permanent resident of the aforesaid address (Village and Post Office Gehar, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P., Age: 24 years). My husband is a driver. I have a daughter who is one and a half months old. Around two hours ago I was heating milk for my daughter and for this purpose I ignited the gas stove. The gas was leaking and at once there was fire ball and my hair caught fire. On this I raised hue and cry and then my husband came to my rescue. I got burnt due to fire. Nobody has put me on fire." 4. During investigation, police collected the evidence and residues were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mandi. Report dated 29.1.2019 of the RFSL, Mandi detected kerosene oil on partially burnt clothes and from a plastic bottle. 5. This scientific evidence is in total contradiction with the alleged dying declaration. It appears that this poor lady did not want her husband to suffer. 6. The Investigating Officer has preferred to file the police report under Section 302 I.P.C. Whether the case would fall under Section 302 I.P.C. or Section 304B I.P.C. or Section 306 I.P.C. would be in the domain of the trial Court which may consider this aspect at the time of framing of charges. Needless to say, it shall always be open for the petitioner to make his submissions at that stage and to contest any such order unfavourable to him. 7. Needless to say, it shall always be open for the petitioner to make his submissions at that stage and to contest any such order unfavourable to him. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner have placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shravan Ram & another, (2013) 12 SCC 255 ; Balbir Singh & another vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 283 ; Lella Shrinivasa Rao vs. State of A.P., (2004) 9 SCC 713 ; and Kamla (Smt) vs. State of Punjab, (1993) 1 SCC 1 . In all these cases, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was hearing final appeals and not bail applications. Final appeals are based on evidence recorded during the trial and the documents proved on record. Therefore, these are not judicial precedents to decide the bail applications. 8. Be that as it may, death had taken place within seven years of marriage and evidence on record does not warrant that the petitioner is entitled to the discretion of bail. One additional factor that goes against the bail petitioner is that his stand in this petition, is prima facie, improbable. However, this is neither any admission nor binds him not to change his defence during trial. 9. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail petition. Learned trial Court shall not at all be influenced with any observations made in this order. 10. It shall be open for the bail petitioner to file a bail petition before the learned trial Court after the framing of charges. It is further clarified that the learned trial Court shall decide such application uninfluenced of the present application. In case the petitioner does not get bail from any Court then in such an event it is requested to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, present petition stands dismissed.