1 cri-appa-1295-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1295 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2010 Gopinath Vithhal Sable .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Prashant M. Patil for applicant. Mrs.A.S. Pai, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 03, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the applicant, who was accused no.3 in Sessions Case No. 319 of 2007 and in the said case accused nos.1, 2 and 4 came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 394 read with Section 34 of IPC. The present applicant – accused no. 3 has been convicted for 2 cri-appa-1295-10 the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of IPC and he is presently undergoing the sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 771 of 2010 filed by the applicant-accused has been admitted and hence this application for being released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The prosecution case was based entirely on the circumstantial evidence and it had examined 13 witnesses before the trial court. As per the prosecution, the cell phone, which was in use by the deceased – Ajay, was, at the first instance, recovered from PW 8 – Mohan Barve who stated that he had purchased it from PW 7 – Shivaji Pardhi of his village and PW 7 – Shivaji Pardhi, in turn, stated that he had purchased it from the present applicant and that is how the applicant came to be arrested on 7/1/2007. After his arrest, the recovery of gold ring of the deceased was also made and for that the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW 3 – Rajesh Shinde – brother of the deceased, PW 4 – Amar Kadu and PW 6 – Satish Solanki, Goldsmith. For the recovery of cell phone, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of DW 1 - Suresh Khandelwal. We have perused the depositions of these witnesses as well as the reasoning set out by the trial court while holding the accused guilty in causing the murder of Ajay 3 cri-appa-1295-10 Shinde on or about 8/4/2006. 3. We are satisfied that no case has been made out to suspend the order of sentence under Section 389 of Cr. P.C. and release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of his appeal. 4. Hence, the application is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)