1 cri-appa-416-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 416 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2011 Dhairyasheel Sampat Kamble .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. Nasreen Ayubi, appointed Advocate for the applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. APRIL 05, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs. Ayubi, the learned appointed Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP appears for the State of Maharashtra. 2. In Sessions Case No. 16 of 2009, the applicant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of 2 cri-appa-416-11 IPC for causing homicidal death of his wife and the said order is under challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2011, which has been admitted by us on 21/1/2011. By this application, he prays for being released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2011. 3. As per the prosecution case, the accused himself, after causing bleeding injuries to his deceased wife by a sickle, surrendered at the Police Station and handed over the weapon as well on the date of the incident, while he was being chased by the pedestrians. On the basis of his report, the F.I.R. at Exh. 27 came to be registered as C.R. No. 4 of 2009. The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. The medical evidence unerringly proved that the applicant’s wife – Vidya died a homicidal death and in addition the following circumstances have been considered by the trial court: (a) Production of the weapon by the accused immediately after the incident. (b) The conduct of the accused immediately after the incident informing to the police about the commission of offence on which the FIR was registered. 3 cri-appa-416-11 (c) The serological report in respect of weapon (sickle) produced by the accused and clothes on the person of accused having human blood. (d) Recovery of cycle and chappal belonging to deceased Vidya at the instance of accused. (e) Motive. 4. Having regard to the evidence considered by the trial court, prima facie, we are satisfied that there is no case made out to suspend the order of sentence and release the accused on bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. 5. Hence, this application is rejected. (A. M. THIPSAY, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)