1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3899 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.384 OF 2010 Arfanaya s/o Abas Chavan ..Applicant (Orig.Accused No.1) Versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Parner, Taluka Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar ..Respondent Mr.N.K.Kakade, Advocate for applicant Mr.D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 26th October 2010 PER COURT : 1. The applicant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar by judgment dated 25.8.2010 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, seeks his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the trial. Undisputedly, the applicant was not on bail during trial. 2. The prosecution principally relied upon the testimony of P.W.1 Dekhwan wife of Lazim and P.W.2 Alitan wife of present applicant and daughter of deceased Lazim and P.W.4 Avinash son of deceased Lazim. The evidence of all the witnesses is to the effect that they had seen the applicant along with other accused carrying a sack, which contained the dead body of deceased Lazim. The trial Court accepted the evidence of the three witnesses and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the evidence against the present applicant and other accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them. 2 3. Mr.N.K. Kakade, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the deposition of the three witnesses would clearly indicate that they had not stated about the eliminated shade by the light in the adjoining house and consequently on account of darkness it was not possible for the witnesses to have identified the present applicant. The aforesaid submission, according to us pertains to reappreciation of evidence, which cannot be done. Suffice it to state that the trial Court has accepted the evidence of the three witnesses despite the omission being proved and brought on record. In these circumstances, therefore, we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and enlarge the applicant on bail. The fact that the applicant is required to support three minor children cannot be a ground germane for suspending the substantive sentence and releasing the applicant on bail, particularly while considering the application for bail post conviction. Additionally, we find that the applicant was not on bail during trial. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, we dismiss the application and expedite the hearing of the appeal. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3899.10criappln)