1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 530 of 2011 IN Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2011 [Amar Lalendra Mahajan Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. M.A. Bapat, Adv., for the applicant-appellant. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, APP for respondent. ----- CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 23rd November, 2011. 1. By this application, the applicant- appellant seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail, pending the decision of the appeal. 2. The applicant stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicant had committed the murder of his wife Pooja on 8th May, 2009 at about 3.30 p.m., and thereafter had attempted to commit suicide. 3. The Trial Court found that the deceased 2 Pooja had been throttled and death of Pooja was a homicidal death. The applicant, after killing his wife Pooja, had telephoned PW 1, cousin of the applicant, and had confessed to have killed Pooja. A witness from the Mobile Company has been examined to establish what PW 1 has stated that a call was made from the mobile phone of the applicant, and was received by PW 1. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that a death of Pooja was a homicidal death and in the absence of any explanation from the applicant either in respect of death of Pooja or in respect of his own attempt to commit suicide, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant was not on bail during trial. 4. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 5. Mr. M.A. Bapat, learned counsel for the applicant, has urged before us that the circumstances taken at their face value do not prove the offence against the applicant beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 6. Learned APP has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court, and has urged for dismissal of this application, as, according to learned APP, there is strong evidence against the applicant in respect of his complicity in 3 the offence. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant pertains to re-appreciation of evidence which cannot be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that the Trial Court has convicted the applicant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. We have ourselves examined the findings recorded by the Trial Court and according to us, this is not a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Further, we find that the applicant was not on bail during trial. 8. In that light of the matter, we dismiss the present application, but expedite the hearing of the appeal. Judge Judge |Hedau|