1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1247 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2009 Manappa Sidrayya Vanmore .. Applicant.. vs. State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent. Mr. Vijay Killedar for the applicant. Ms. U.V. Kejriwal, APP. for the Respondent. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. : Heard. 2. This is an application for suspension of sentence filed by 2 the appellant who has been convicted for having committed an offence under section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. By the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 196 of 2006. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant has committed murder of Birappa who was his friend as he was suspecting that Birappa was having illicit relations with the wife of the accused. The prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence like last seen together, motive and recovery. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the deceased was a womaniser and was disposing of his property and, therefore, had many enemies. It is submitted that the applicant has roots in the society. He owns property and has family to maintain and that he was on bail during trial and, therefore, his case may be considered for suspension of sentence. 5. The learned APP strongly objects to grant of bail by suspending the sentence and submits that the offence of murder under section 302 read with 201 IPC has been proved against the appellant- accused and, therefore, the appellant-accused does not deserve to be released on bail. 3 6. We find that in the given facts and circumstances particularly when the only evidence of last seen together if considered clearly shows that the accused along with the deceased Birappa were found together in a liquor shop along with others on 13.3.2006 at about 17.00 hrs., whereas the dead body of the deceased was found in the field of one Tukaram Krishna Kadam after one day. Therefore, on going through the evidence on record and the judgment and order of the learned trial Court and particularly considering that the case is solely based on circumstantial evidence and that the accused was on bail during the trial and in the given facts and circumstances we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the accused during the pendency of the appeal and release him on bail. Hence, the following order. 7. The appellant-accused be released on bail on his executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties in the said amount i.e. surety of Rs. 15,000/- each on the following conditions. (i) That the appellant-accused shall not indulge in any offence while on bail. 4 (ii) That the appellant-accused shall report to the Umadi Police Station at least once in a month i.e. in the first week of every month and maintain a pocket diary of his attendance. (iii) That the appellant-accused shall not leave jurisdiction of Umadi Police Station without permission of the trial Court. 8. Copy of the order be communicated to Umadi Police Station, Taluka Jat, District Sangli for compliance in respect of attending the Police Station. 9. The criminal application stands disposed of accordingly. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)