1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 233/2009 in Criminal Appeal No.548/2007 Umashankar Potbhare and 3 others Vs. State of Maharashtra. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ. Date of reserving the Order : 5/11/2009 Date of pronouncing the order : 7/11/2009. Heard Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mirza, learned APP for the respondent. This is third application filed by the applicant seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The applicant and three others have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment and order dated 17th October, 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 25/2007. The applicant and other appellants have been convicted for murder of Rajendra Devrao Hatwar and Vijay Deorao Hatwar. The applicant who was on bail pending trial along with accused no.3 filed Criminal Application No. 2 3789/2007 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail which was rejected on merits by order dated 8.4.2008. In the said order this Court has held that the applicant who is accused no.2 along with accused nos. 3 and 4 had held Rajan and accused no.1 Umashankar had assaulted him with knife and when Vijay had rushed to save his brother, he was also held and accused no.4 inflicted several blows by knife on the person of Vijay. The applicant along with the other accused filed another application bearing Criminal Application No. 184/2009 which was dismissed by order dated 30.1.2009. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant is 70 years old and he was on bail pending the trial, substantive sentence imposed on the applicant is liable to be suspended and the applicant is liable to be released on bail in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Anil Arvi Vs. State of West Bengal : 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1753. Mr. Daga submitted that the said judgment was delivered by the Apex Court after earlier two applications were rejected by this Court and, therefore, in view of the said judgment the applicant is entitled to be released on bail by this court. Per contra, Mr. Mirza, learned APP submitted that no case has been made out for suspension of sentence and grant of bail by the applicant, who has been convicted for double murder. 3 It is not in dispute that earlier two applications seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail were rejected by this Court. In the case of Anil Ari (supra) the Apex Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 referred to law regarding suspension of sentence and grant of bail laid down by the Apex Court in cases involving conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and held that it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted to an accused. The Apex Court in paragraph 13 of the judgment directed release of the accused considering the peculiar facts of the case considering the age of the accused who was about 70 years. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Daga that in case of Anil Ari the Apex Court has laid down the ratio that an accused who is aged about 70 years and who was on bail during the trial is entitled to be released on bail pending the appeal against conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the said judgment clearly discloses that the Apex Court released the appellant on bail considering the peculiar facts and also the age of the appellant. In the present case, the conviction of the applicant is for causing murder of two persons. We do not find any peculiar circumstances to release the applicant on bail. We do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Daga that the 4 applicant is entitled to be released on bail in view of the judgment in the case of Anil (supra). For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find merit in the application. Hence, the application is dismissed. However, considering the age of the applicant which is stated to be 71 years, liberty is granted to the applicant to apply for early hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 548/2007 after paper book is ready. Preparation of paper book is expedited. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.