sanjay 1 505.11-appa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 505 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 673 OF 2007 Namdev Sadashiv Dethe. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Ganesh Gole for the applicant.; Dr.S.R.Shaikh, APP for the respondent­ State. CORAM : B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : 26th April 2011. P.C. : Heard Mr.Gole, learned counsel for the applicant­ accused No. 2. Dr.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. appears for the State of Maharashtra. 2. The applicant prays for being released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No.673/2007. 3. As per the prosecution case, the applicant was married to one Vijaya, the elder sister of P.W.9­ Bapu Laxman Bhosale for about 7 to 8 years but she could not conceive. Hence the applicant married accused No.1 and from her he begot two children. However, subsequently, Vijaya sanjay 2 505.11-appa conceived and, as per the prosecution case, this was not liked by accused No.1. The accused tried to give pills to Vijaya so that the pregnancy could be aborted. When they failed, Vijaya was killed and her dead body was dumped in a pond. After 8 to 10 days from the filing of the missing complaint by accused No.2 the body of the Vijaya was recovered. The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses and as per P.W.14­ Dr.Waydande, the death of Vijaya was homicidal. The prosecution further claims that the dead body of Vijaya was recovered from the pond at village Dhondewadi and after recording memorandum of statement (Exh.47) of accused No.1 in the presence of P.W.12­ Mahiboob Husen Nadaf and recovery panchanama was drawn at Exh.48. 4. We have perused the recovery panchanama at Exh.48, the testimony of P.W.4 as well as P.W.14. Vijaya was reported to be missing from 30th June 2006 and her dead body was recovered on 10th July 2006. 5. We are satisfied that no case has been made out to release the applicant­ accused No.2 on bail but Criminal Appeal No.673/2007, which is ready for final hearing, is to be heard and decided as early as possible. 6. Hence, this application is rejected with liberty to apply for fixing early date of hearing. (A. M. THIPSAY, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)