1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.284 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1189 OF 2004 Naresh Eknath Naik .. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mrs.Jyoti S. Pawar, advocate, for applicant Mrs.V.R.Bhosale, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. . The first bail application was dismissed on merits on 7th December, 2004. This is the second bail application. 2. According to the learned counsel for applicant the change of the circumstances are that the accused is in custody for the last five years. Reliance is placed on the order of the Supreme Court in Takht Singh Versus State of M.P, reported in 1999 DGLS 1406. 2 The said order reads as under :- “(1) LEAVE granted. (2) The appellants have been convicted under S.302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” The accused there was convicted for offence under Section 302/149. After having undergone imprisonment for over three years is applied for bail. The Supreme Court after considering that the conviction of the accused was under Section 302/149 was pleased to grant the bail. The Judgment is not for the proposition that in a case where an accused is convicted for life imprisonment. After some years if the 3 appeal is not heard, the appellant is entitled to bail. Bail was granted there in the facts of that case. 3. It is then contended that there are minor children. Considering this aspect the Court should grant bail. 4. We may place on record and take judicial note that the number of deaths of young women after marriage is on the increase. If the Courts in such matters start taking lenient view on the ground that the children require assistance it would send a wrong message to the community. In our opinion, therefore, bail cannot be granted more specially in the case where there is a conviction by the Court by recording reasons. 5. In the instant case the first bail application was dismissed on merits. In the light of that no case is made out. Application is rejected. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) 4 (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)