1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1693/2008 In Criminal Appeal No.301/2005 [Parvatabai Ramji Thakre and two others .vrs. The State of Maharashtra] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for the respondent/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ DATED : MAY 2, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Dilip s/o Ramaji Thakre (the husband of deceased Mangala) along with the mother-in-law of deceased Mangala, brother-in-law and brother-in-law's wife were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC. All of them were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC. Dilip (the husband of deceased Mangala) was also acquitted of the offence punishable under 2 Section 302 of IPC. However, the mother-in-law, brother-in- law and and brother-in-law's wife came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC They preferred the present appeal against the conviction and sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother-in- law and wife of brother-in-law of deceased Mangala were released on bail. The brother-in-law of deceased Mangala also claims bail on the ground of parity. 3. It may be noted that the name of the husband of the deceased Mangala does not appear in any of her dying declarations, whereas the names of all the appellants appear in the dying declarations. The case of appellant no.3 cannot be compared with other appellants since they were females and thus, it appears that there is strong evidence in support of the conviction of the present appellants. We are not inclined to grant bail. The application for bail is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande