1 cri-appa-1151-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1551 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 975 OF 2007 Ramesh Mani Devendra .. Applicant (Org. Accd. No. 1) Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. Anjali Patil for applicant. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 03, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs. Patil, the learned counsel for the applicant, who is appellant no.2 in Criminal Appeal No. 975 of 2007 which has been admitted by this court. The said appeal arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 632 of 2006 and the applicant 2 cri-appa-1151-10 was accused no.1 – the husband of the deceased. 2. The bail application of accused no. 3, who is the mother of the present applicant, came to be rejected by this court on 1/4/2008 and accused no.2 had also prayed for being released on bail in Criminal Application No. 144 of 2010 and the same has been rejected by this court on 18/2/2010. 3. The applicant is the husband of the deceased, who died of 100% burn injuries while in the matrimonial home. All the three accused have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced by Mrs. Patil, the learned counsel for the applicant and the reasoning set out by the trial court in the order of conviction, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail by suspending the order of sentence under Section 389 of Cr. P.C. during the pendency of the appeal. 5. Hence, the application is rejected. 3 cri-appa-1151-10 6. Mrs. Patil, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that she has filed a fresh bail application for accused no.3. However, the same has not been listed before us today. She states that the said application is Criminal Application No. 101 of 2011. Let that be listed on 17/2/2011. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)