1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.400 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.880 OF 2010 Ashok Tatoba Yamgar. ....Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ....Respondent. Mr. S.A.Ingawale, advocate for applicant. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM:- P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ DATED:- MARCH 30, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application by the applicant/original accused no.2, for suspension of the substantive sentence and his enlargement on bail pending decision of the appeal. The applicant had been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The case against the applicant revolved around the testimony of P.W.5 Manisha and P.W. 11 Santosh, who are examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses. The prosecution derived support by the confession of the original accused No.4 at Exh. 125 recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The trial court upon 2 appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the offence against the present applicant and the other accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the applicant. 2 Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the evidence of the Investigating Officer would disclose that he did not have any clue about the perpetrator of the crime and consequently the applicant/accused was arrested very late. It is also urged before us that it is obvious that neither the P.W.5 Manisha nor P.W.11 Sandeep had witnessed the incident and only obliged the prosecution. The aforesaid submission according to us pertains to re- appreciation of the evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that it is a prima facie material against the applicant/accused and therefore, we are not inclined to suspend substantive sentence and enlarge the applicant on bail, though he has stayed on bail during trial. Application is accordingly dismissed. (M.N.GILANI, J) (P.V.HARDAS, J)