hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLEATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2010 Vinayak Nivruti Dhumal ... Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Smt. Indrayani Koparkar, Advocate appointed for the applicant. Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATED : JULY 22, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is a life convict and prays for bail. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire case is based on sole eye witness who is a child witness and grand son of the deceased. The accused and deceased were closely related to each other. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the police statement of the child witness was recorded after 8 days of the incident. The learned counsel placed reliance on reported judgment in State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan Baburao Phakatkar, 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 306. 3. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the application on the ground that the order of conviction and sentence can be maintained if the evidence of child witness is inspiring confidence in the prosecution case. 4. We have considered the submissions and perused the record and the judgment cited above. We find that the grandson of the deceased deposed against the applicant. There is recovery of blood stained clothes and an axe from the applicant. The deceased died homicidal death. The issue concerning reliability of evidence of the child witness, would be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. There is no merit in the bail application. Hence, rejected. The Secretary, Legal Aid to disburse fees to the learned counsel for the applicant. A copy of this order be forwarded to the prison authorities. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)