1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.264 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.105 OF 2008 Dattatraya Jagannath More .... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent Mr.Vinod Jadhav, for the applicant. Smt.V.S.Bhosale, A.P.P., for the State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 05TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed for releasing him on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant has been found guilty and convicted under Section 302, 498(A) and 323 of Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of his wife. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased wife in her initial dying declaration has not implicated the applicant, though in her subsequent dying declarations she has stated that she was subjected to pouring of kerosene by the appellant. We have gone through the two 2 dying declarations, wherein the deceased has given details as to how the incident had occurred. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, the mother and sister of the deceased was examined and they have given version about the ill treatment given to the deceased. Considering the fact that after recording the evidence, the appellant has been found to have committed the offences, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion by releasing the applicant/accused on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that two daughters of the applicant/accused are residing at the house of the relative of the accused. So far as this aspect is concerned, after the paper book is ready, it will be open to the applicant/accused to apply for fix date of hearing of this appeal. In view of what has been stated above, the criminal application is rejected. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)