1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CriminalAPPA No.157/2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 96/2010 Champat Shrawan Shendre Vs. The State of Mah. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. 9TH APRIL, 2010. Heard Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mirza, learned APP for the respondent. The applicant has been convicted for committing murder of his wife Tuljabai on 21.11.2008. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence has held that the applicant had brought plastic can containing kerosene and poured it on his wife Tuljabai. Since Tuljabai was cooking in her house by sitting near oven, there was explosion of fire and her clothes caught fire. Thereafter Madhuri, daughter of the applicant poured water on her and extinguished the fire. Deceased Tuljabai sustained burn injuries to the extent of 71% and succumbed to the injuries. Mr. Daga placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Ari Vs. State of West Bengal : 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1753 2 (S.C.) submitted that since the applicant is 72 years old, he is entitled to be released on bail and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail for a considerable length of time. Per contra, Mr. Mirza, learned APP submitted that no exceptional case is made for grant of bail since the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent and having perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for suspension of substantive sentence. The judgment in the case of Anil Ari (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Daga does not lay down that in every case where the accused is over 70 years, he is entitled to be released on bail pending the appeal even if his conviction is for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case the applicant was not on bail during pendnecy of the trial and nature of the offence committed by the applicant is serious in nature and having regard to the nature of the offence and manner in which it was committed, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for suspension of substantive sentence and grant of bail 3 to the applicant. In view of the above, the application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.