JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), in FIR No.282 of 2018, dated 04.11.2018, registered in Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). 2. Status report stands filed and record was also made available. 3. As per status report, on 12.11.2018, at 10.55 a.m., on receiving information that Jyoti Devi had suffered burn injuries and she had been taken to the Hospital, police party rushed to Civil Hospital Sarkaghat where victim Jyoti Devi and her husband (petitioner-accused) were present with burn injuries. After medical examination, Medico Legal Certificate was obtained by the police. Medical Officer declared Jyoti Devi to be fit for making statement whereafter, her statement was recorded in presence of Dr. Anjana who also put her signature thereon. Thereafter, Jyoti Devi was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Ner Chowk, for treatment, wherefrom she was further referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla (IGMC) and from IGMC to PGI, Chandigarh. On the way to PGI, Jyoti Devi died and her dead body was brought to Civil Hospital Sarkaghat. Thereafter, parents of deceased came to the Police Station and father of victim made statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., stating therein that Jyoti Devi was one amongst their four children, i.e. two sons and two daughters, who was married with petitioner-Ashok Kumar about 6-7 years ago and couple was blessed with two children, i.e. one boy 4 years of age and one daughter about age of 1 ½ month. 4. It has further been stated by complainant that on 12.11.2018, at about 8.30 p.m., Jyoti Devi gave missed call on his mobile, and in response, he called his daughter and both of them inquired about wellbeing of each other. At about 10.30 p.m., Pawan Kumar (brother-in-law/Jeth) of Jyoti Devi made a call on mobile of complainant’s wife and informed that Jyoti Devi was serious and she had been burnt totally and was not breathing. On inquiry about petitioner-Ashok Kumar, Pawan Kumar replied that he had fled after putting Jyoti Devi on fire and he further informed that Jyoti Devi was being taken in Ambulance to Sarkaghat Hospital. On inquiry about petitioner-Ashok Kumar, Pawan Kumar replied that he had fled after putting Jyoti Devi on fire and he further informed that Jyoti Devi was being taken in Ambulance to Sarkaghat Hospital. At about 11.00/11.30 p.m., petitioner-Ashok Kumar informed them that Doctors have referred Jyoti Devi to Medical College and Hospital, Ner Chowk and he was going there alongwith Jyoti Devi. Accordingly, complainant alongwith his wife (parents of victim) went to Ner Chowk Medical College/Hospital, wherefrom she was referred to IGMC Shimla and from IGMC Shimla to PGI Chandigarh. On the way, complainant and his wife (parents of deceased/victim) were accompanying Jyoti Devi in the Ambulance. 5. Complainant-Krishan Chand has further stated that in the Ambulance Jyoti Devi disclosed to his wife by saying that she was revealing that fact for the first time that her husband threw some liquid on her body in the bedroom, which was smelling like petrol/ kerosene oil and victim also requested her mother to take her children with them in case of her death, because her husband was so cruel that he would kill children also and the habitants of vicinity would not disclose anything due to his fear. Further that, Jyoti Devi had stated that she had not disclosed those facts either to the police or someone else because she was worried about her children and, therefore, despite receiving grave burn injuries, she did not state anything against her husband to the police and she requested her parents to save future of her children. 6. It was further stated by the complainant that they did not question their daughter any more in this regard. He has also stated that his son-in-law Ashok Kumar used to harass their daughter since 6 months after the marriage and was having doubt on character of Jyoti Devi and because of Ashok Kumar (his son-in-law), either Jyoti Devi had ended her life or Ashok Kumar had burnt her by pouring some liquid upon her. 7. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR under Sections 302, 498-A and 306 IPC was registered and during investigation Ashok Kumar was arrested on 14.11.2018 at 2.00 a.m. 8. After completion of trial, challan under Section 302 IPC was presented in the Court, which is pending adjudication and is at the stage of recording evidence of prosecution. 7. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR under Sections 302, 498-A and 306 IPC was registered and during investigation Ashok Kumar was arrested on 14.11.2018 at 2.00 a.m. 8. After completion of trial, challan under Section 302 IPC was presented in the Court, which is pending adjudication and is at the stage of recording evidence of prosecution. As on date, 35 witnesses out of total 37 witnesses have been examined and now case is fixed for recording of remaining 2 witnesses (one SHO and one I.O.) on 22.02.2023. 9. As per status report, in the past, four FIRs have been found registered against petitioner i.e. FIR No.233 of 2009, under Sections 451 and 504 IPC; FIR No.82 of 2009, under Sections 279 and 337 IPC; FIR No.153 of 2011, under Sections 451, 323 and 504 IPC; and FIR No.307 of 2016, under Sections 451, 435, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, in Police Station Sarkaghat. 10. As per post-mortem report deceased died due to hypovolemic shock with multiple organ failure with cardiopulmonary arrest due to ante mortem burns. 11. After receipt report of physical and chemical analysis of the material sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), report with respect to cause of death remained the same and as per RFSL, kerosene was detected in a plastic bottle containing few drops of yellow coloured liquid as well as in partially burnt clothes collected from near the bed (bed box). Some semi burnt debris was also collected from different places of the bedroom, but kerosene oil could not be detected in that. 12. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that story of burning Jyoti Devi by petitioner has been concocted in order to take revenge of death of their daughter by her parents as Jyoti Devi, in her statement made in the Hospital at Sarkaghat, did not disclose anything as narrated in the statement of her father recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., rather she had given statement in presence of Doctor that she caught fire due to leakage of gas while warming milk for her daughter. It has further been submitted that a small Gas Cylinder was kept in the bedroom, which suddenly, on the day of incident, started leaking causing burn injuries to Jyoti Devi and the said Cylinder was thrown by petitioner-Ashok Kumar in the courtyard to save life of his family members, including victim Jyoti Devi and despite disclosing this fact to the police, Investigating Agency did not take note of it. It has further been submitted that when Jyoti Devi was being taken to PGI, she was not breathing properly and, therefore, Oxygen Mask was put on her mouth and in such situation, she was not able to disclose anything to anybody and, therefore, it is impossible to believe that she disclosed facts, as narrated in the FIR, to her mother particularly when she had already made statement in the Hospital in presence of the Doctor, contrary to the facts stated in the FIR. 13. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in burnt debris collected from different places of the bedroom, no kerosene oil was found. There was no smell of kerosene in the body of the deceased which falsifies the story as told by complainant-Krishan Chand to the police. He has further submitted, as disclosed by victim-Jyoti Devi in the Hospital at the first instance that the moment Jyoti Devi caught fire, her husband Ashok Kumar-petitioner rushed to save her and he also suffered burn injuries and in case he was having intention to kill, he would have never tried to extinguish the fire to save Jyoti Devi. 14. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are two dying declarations being relied upon by the prosecution, one was made before the police in presence of Doctor and another before mother and both dying declarations are contrary to each other and in such eventuality, petitioner is entitled for benefit for contradictory dying declarations and, in any case, the first dying declaration made by Jyoti Devi has to be given weightage as it was made immediately after the incident. Whereas, in second dying declaration, there is possibility of tampering and tutoring, more particularly when such statement has been claimed to have been made when victim was being taken from one Hospital to another Hospital with Oxygen Mask on her face and there were two more persons also present in the Ambulance and none of them have endorsed making of such statement by the victim. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2020, titled as Ram Kumar @ Nanki vs. State of Madhya Pradesh now Chhattisgarh, to substantiate the plea that testimony of parents of victim is not reliable for punishing the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred various depositions of the witnesses recorded in the Court during trial to impress upon the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail after evaluating the veracity of these statements. 17. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the judgment referred on behalf of the petitioner was passed by the Supreme Court during hearing of final appeal, but not in a bail application and final appeal is to be adjudicated based upon the evidence placed on record during trial, whereas, no such evaluation or assessment is to be undertaken by the Court at the time of deciding bail application. It has further been submitted that death has taken place within 7 years of marriage and material on record is sufficient to establish prima facie that petitioner has committed an offence under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, length of period of detention is not relevant for enlarging the petitioner on bail. It has further been submitted that report of the Forensic Lab and burnt material seized from the place of incident, i.e. bedroom, are indicating that petitioner has committed the offence as alleged in the challan as there was no occasion for boiling milk in the room when Kitchen of the family was adjacent to the room. 18. It has further been submitted that report of the Forensic Lab and burnt material seized from the place of incident, i.e. bedroom, are indicating that petitioner has committed the offence as alleged in the challan as there was no occasion for boiling milk in the room when Kitchen of the family was adjacent to the room. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred Scene Of Occurrence Report wherein it has been reported that match box and gas lighter were also lying aside to the wet blanket found on the floor, there was a wet towel, and rings of curtain were found broken, indicating that it was forcefully pulled from its position and there, in order to substantiate that there was a gas cylinder with burner being kept and used by family of petitioner in the room. It has been contended that otherwise there was no question of keeping gas lighter in the bedroom. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in case the aforesaid report is to be considered, then entire report has to be taken into consideration as in this report it has also been mentioned that yellowish blue coloured liquid was found on the spot which lateron was found to be kerosene oil. It has also been recorded that search was made for other incriminating evidences like Gas Stove etc., but nothing could be found in the room and, further that, it was inferred in the report that ‘a fire accident had occurred on the spot’. 20. Petitioner has also approached the Court by filing bail application Cr.M.P.(M) No.693 of 2019, titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which was dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.06.2019. Bail Application No.43 of 2021, preferred by the petitioner before Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., was also dismissed on 18.01.1022. 21. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that trial is at the advanced stage and only 2 witnesses are left to be examined and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate evidence on merit for considering bail application of the petitioner. 21. It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that trial is at the advanced stage and only 2 witnesses are left to be examined and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate evidence on merit for considering bail application of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 302 IPC, for which petitioner may be sentenced for life imprisonment or capital punishment and, therefore, period of detention is not so much relevant in present case for adjudicating this bail application. 22. Case is at advanced stage now only 2 witnesses remain to be examined. Therefore, any observation by this Court on merit, shall cause prejudice to the merits of the case and, therefore, taking into consideration entire facts, but without commenting on merits thereon and taking into account factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme Court and this Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled for bail, at this stage. Therefore, petition is dismissed, however with direction to the Trial Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably by 13.04.2023, by ensuring presence and examination of remaining witnesses on 22.02.2023.