1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3517 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.330 OF 2010 1. Bhaskar Lotan Wagh, Age-29 years, Occu-Agriculture, 2. Sakhubai Lotan Wagh, Age-60 years, Occu-Housewife, 3. Raju Lotan Wagh, Age-19 years, Occu-Agriculture, All R/o.Hatti-Khurd, Tq.Sakri, Dist. Dhule APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.B.R.Warma, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 29/09/2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. This is an application filed by the applicants seeking suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and their enlargement on bail pending the decision of this appeal. The 2 applicants/appellants stand convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of The IPC and are sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with the default stipulation of undergoing further imprisonment for 6 months in the event of non payment of fine, by the Additional Sessions Judge -1 Dhule vide judgment dated 25/08/2010 in Sessions Case No.154/2009. 2. The pivot of the prosecution in respect of the evidence against the applicants accused revolves around the two dying declarations at Exh.34 and 38. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that there is discrepancy and variance in respect of both the dying declarations. It is also urged before us that certain independent persons i.e. neighbourers who were present, had not been examined by the prosecution. It is further urged before us that there is no independent corroboration to the recitals in the dying declarations about the presence of accused and particular role attributed to the accused. It is also urged before us that accused no. 1 was in employment and the muster roll has been produced on record which clearly establishes that the accused no.1 was not present at the scene of the offence. Incidentally, we may state that the Trial Court has repelled the plea of alibi set up by the accused no. 1 on the ground that accused no.1 had failed to establish his plea of alibi though the burden of proving the same rests on him. The learned APP has urged before us that this is not a fit case for granting bail. 3 3. The submissions advanced before us pertain to re-appreciation of evidence, which can not be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that, there is evidence in the shape of 2 written dying declarations at Exh.34 and 38, which clearly spell out the complicity of the applicants in the crime. It is also urged before us that original accused no.2 is a lady of age 60 years, and therefore would be entitled to be released on bail. It is also urged before us that during the trial, all the applicants were on bail and had not misused the discretion exercised by the Court in releasing them on bail. According to us that by itself can not be a consideration for granting bail post conviction. 4. In the light of the evidence available against the applicants, we are not inclined to entertain this application, and this application is accordingly dismissed. However, in the light of the fact that accused no.2 is a lady, we expedite the hearing of the appeal. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.appl.3517-10