*1* appa.349.11.apeal.185.11.1.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.349 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.185 OF 2011 Kiran Raju Pujari. ..Applicant/Accused -Versus- The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent ........... Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.S.R.Ganbavale, for the Applicant/accused. Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for the Respondent/State. .......... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.M.THIPSAY, JJ. Date : 06th April, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard Mr.Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Ganbavale, for the Applicant/accused and Mrs.Pai, learned APP for the State. 2 The Applicant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 436 r/w 511, 379 and 201 r/w 511 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.500/2009 and for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. The said order of conviction and sentence has been challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 185/2011 which has been admitted by us on 16.03.2011. By this application, the Applicant prays for release on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 3 As per the prosecution case, the deceased Vidya, mother of five year old son-Om, was staying in Empire Estate in Chinchwad area, while her husband Deepak Ghorpade (PW-16) was working at Bangalore. Vidya was employed with a private company i.e. Fijithsu at Talwade, Pune. The Applicant was a regular visitor at the house of the *2* appa.349.11.apeal.185.11.1.sxw deceased and he had developed intimate relationship with her. While the Applicant was in the company of the deceased in the night of 12.03.2009, she had received an SMS from Mr.Kapur (PW-5) who was her boss and on reading that SMS, the Applicant got enraged and suspecting that she also had intimate relationship with PW-5, he stabbed Vidya to death and in the same manner he killed her son-Om. He then switched on the cooking gas and left her flat at about 11:00 p.m.. He was picked up from Lucknow on 15.03.2009 by the Special Investigation Team. 4 The prosecution examined in all 22 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution’s case was based mainly on the circumstantial evidence and more particularly the extra-judicial confession of the Applicant made to PW-4 (Prashant Hegade). 5 The learned Judge of the Trial Court has considered the evidence of all the witnesses and more particularly the evidence of PW-4 along with the record of the CDRs and SMSes made between 03.03.2009 to 15.03.2009 on the mobile in possession of PW-4 and the mobile in possession of the Applicant. As per the prosecution case, the mobile which was in possession of the Applicant was with the deceased and stood in the name of PW-18 and after committing the crime, he had taken away the said mobile phone with him. The Trial Court has accepted the prosecution case based on the extra-judicial confession and other circumstances of call details as well as SMS details. 6 Having regard to the evidence of the prosecution and reasoning set out in the order of conviction, we are satisfied that there is no case made out to release the Applicant on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 7 Hence, the application is rejected. (A.M.THIPSAY, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)