1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2714 OF 2009. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.363 OF 2009. Dilip Laxman Jadhav ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, advocate for the applicant. Smt.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 02.09.2009. PER COURT 1. This is an application for bail as well for suspension of the conviction rendered against the appellant for offence punishable U/s 498-A and U/s 304-B of the I.P. Code. He was tried before the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions case No.73/2008, along with other accused persons 2 for the said offence. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of prosecution and convicted the appellant for the above referred offences. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) for offence punishable U/s 304-B of the I.P. Code and no separate punishment was awarded for offence U/s 498-A of the I.P.Code. 2. Having heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. and on going through the impugned judgment as well as R & P, what emerges on surface of the record is that the death of married woman occurred within a period of three (3) years is a fact, yet, there are certain aspects which can not be lost sight of. First, though it was alleged that she died as a result of poisoning, yet, no trace of poison was found by the Chemical Analyser during the examination of the viscera. The FIR was filed after about four (4) days of the incident. No written dying declaration was recorded. The prosecution relied upon testimonies of close relatives of the 3 deceased in support of the case about unlawful demand. The defence of the appellant was that suddenly deceased Kantabai developed some medical complications and started omitting in the relevant wee hours. He did not harass her at any point of time. The learned Sessions Judge held that though no poison was detected, yet, the death was under the suspicious circumstances and, therefore, Section 304-B was attracted. In the absence of any dying declaration and independent versions, and particularly when there was no poisonous substance found during the examination by the Chemical Analyser and in absence of any evidence to show that she had procured some poisonous substance, I am inclined to hold that the appellant is entitled to seek liberty. He was on bail during the course of trial. He did not mis-use the liberty. Under the circumstances, his request for release on bail will have to be granted inasmuch as the appeal is likely to be heard after a few years at the present rate of reduction of the pendency. Still, however, there is absolutely no substantial reason to suspend the order of 4 conviction inasmuch as the conviction can not be said to be unfounded on assessment of the record, at the first blush. The fact that he was an employee of the University by itself is not sufficient to order the suspension of the conviction. 3. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The appellant/applicant be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with two solvent sureties for such amount within a period of three (3) weeks. If the bail bonds are furnished in the Sessions Court, the release order may be issued by the learned Sessions Judge. The applicant is directed to report his presence to the concerned Police Station on lst day of each calendar month and on failure to report his presence on lst day, he shall report his presence on next day. If he will fail to report his presence on two consecutive dates, the concerned Police Station through P.I./A.P.P. may bring such non-compliance to the notice of this Court, so as to entail cancellation of the bail. 5 4. Request for suspension of conviction is rejected. 5. Hamdast allowed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp271409