drip {1} Cree Application .No.5032/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5032 OF 2010 Kashinath Vishwanath Lulekar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs.Manjusha S.Jagtap-Ware, advocate for applicant (appointed0 Mr. N.H.Borade, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17th February 2011 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the applicant has committed murder of his mother, deceased Sunita, on 08.04.2009 at about 2.00 a.m. in the morning. The case drip {2} Cree Application .No.5032/2010 against the applicant rests on circumstantial evidence and the trial court has found that the presence of the applicant-accused is established in the house where the dead body was lying. The accused has not offered any explanation, whatsoever, for the death of his mother and blood stained clothes and blood stained axe was recovered at the behest of applicant-accused. The trial court, therefore, came to be conclusion that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed out inexorably to the accused, as the perpetrator of the crime excluding every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. The trial court accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant. 3. We have heard Mrs.Manjusha Jagtap, learned counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant, in support of the application of suspension of sentence of imprisonment and enlargement of the applicant on bail and we have heard learned APP on behalf of respondent-State. We have also perused the record and proceedings. The submissions advanced before us, by the learned counsel for the applicant, pertain to re-appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that there is adequate material, to hold at this prima facie stage that the applicant is guilty of the offence. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 4. We accordingly dismiss this application, expediting drip {3} Cree Application .No.5032/2010 hearing of the appeal. Fees, payable to the learned counsel appointed on behalf of the applicant, are quantified at Rs.1000/- for arguing the bail application. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drip/A11/criapln5032-10