1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2007 SANTOSH BALAPPA ALKUNTE .. APPLICANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT Mr. J. Shekhar i/b M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for applicant Ms. U. V. Kejariwal, APP CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,JJ. DATE: 4/9/2008 P.C. . The applicant was tried by Sessions Court Pune in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2006 for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. By the impugned order he was sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal has been admitted by this court. This is his application for bail. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the 2 applicant. He submitted that barring the interested testimony of PW 1 the wife of the deceased, there is no other cogent evidence on record which can establish the guilt of the accused. 3. He submitted that in any event the prosecution has failed to prove intention and at the most the applicant can be convicted under Section 304 Part-II. He submitted that the applicant is in jail for three and half years and, therefore, he may be released on bail. Learned APP has opposed the application for bail. 4. The prosecution case basically rests on the evidence of PW 1 wife of the deceased. Presence of the applicant in the house is not denied by the applicant. PW 1 is an eye-witness. She has given graphic description of the incident. At this stage we have no reason to disbelieve PW 1 on the ground that she is an interested witness. Prima facie her evidence appears to be truthful. There are three serious injuries on the person of the deceased, one on the chest, second on thoracic cavity and the third on right scapula. There are also abrasions on the left shoulder. The injuries are, therefore, 3 on the vital part of the body. Prima facie, we are unable to come to a conclusion that there was no intention to commit murder. In the circumstances bail cannot be granted to the applicant. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the brother-in-law of the applicant is diagnoised HIV positive and parents of the applicant are staying with the brother-in-law; the applicant is the only bread earner of the family and this may be taken into consideration. 6. We have already stated that the applicant cannot be released on bail on merits. However, if the applicant wants to apply for bail on humanitarian grounds he may file a separate application making out a case. We make it clear that on this aspect we have not expressed any opinion. Needless to say that the court seized of such bail application will consider it in its proper perspective. 7. Application is rejected. JUDGE 4 JUDGE