1 cri-appln.220-11 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.129 OF 2011 Renuka @ Balabai Nivrutti Bhise & Anr...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Madhav J. Jamdar, for the Applicants., Mr. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED: 31st March, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Jamdar, the learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Dedhia, the learned A.P.P., for the State of Maharashtra. 2. The applicants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., in Sessions 2 cri-appln.220-11 Case No.391 of 2006 decided on 24th December, 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Pune. In addition, they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. This order of conviction and sentence is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2011 which has been admitted by us on 23rd February, 2011. By this application they pray for being released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.. 3. By our earlier order dated 10th March, 2011 we had noted our opinion that there was no case for applicant No.2 being released on bail and, therefore, Mr. Jamdar, the learned Counsel for the applicants, did not press this application for applicant No.2. Consequently this application is required to be considered only for accused No.1 who is the wife of accused No.2. 4. As per the prosecution case the incident had taken place on 25th December, 2005 during which Poonam, the cousin of P.W.1-Anil Pandurang Shilimbkar died a homicidal death on account of chopped injuries she suffered on her neck, below the ear, near the nose, etc. The prosecution had examined in all 15 witnesses and it claimed that the 3 cri-appln.220-11 applicants with the help of accused No.3-Rakesh Raju Begade had killed Poonam. The evidence of P.S.10 Dr.Milind Sharad Wabale read with postmortem notes at Exhibit 9 undoubtedly proved that Poonam died a homicidal death. 5. As per the prosecution it was accused No.2-Nivrutti, who had inflicted stab blows on the person of Poonam by sickle and the role attributed to accused No.1 was that of an instigator. Accused No.2 has been denied bail and, therefore, his application has not been pressed for. So far as accused No.1 is concerned, admittedly after she was taken in custody on 27th December, 2005 she was released on bail during the trial, on 6th February, 2006. She surrendered immediately after the impugned order of conviction and sentence was passed on 24th December, 2010. Thus she was on bail for a period close to 5 years and nothing adverse was reported against her during the said period. It has also been pointed out by Mr. Jamdar that the the couple has four children to look after namely Ashwini, daughter aged 16 years, sons Akshay, aged 15 years, Sanket, aged 13 years and Mandar, aged 10 years and all of them are students in the High School or Junior College. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances we are inclined to allow this application for accused No.1. 4 cri-appln.220-11 6. Hence it is directed that accused No.1-Smt.Renuka @ Balabai Nivrutti Bhise wife of Nivrutti Bhise be released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2001 on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount. She shall report to the Swargate Police Station once in a week (on every Sunday between 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.) till the appeal is decided. The application is partly allowed. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)