1 Cri.A.906.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.906 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.114 OF 2011 Rukhminbai W/o Vitthal Mohite ...APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT ... Shri.Y.R.Marllapale,Advocate for Applicant- Appellant No. 2(Original Accused No.2) Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagr, A.G.P. for Respondent ... CORAM: SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATE : 21ST MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant- Appellant No.2(Original Accused No.3), seeking bail, pending hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2011, suspending substantive sentences inflicted upon her, by the 2 Cri.A.906.11 Judgment and order dated 17.02.2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2 Beed, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2010. It appears that, applicant-appellant No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and she was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, and also applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-(Rupees Five Hundred), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, vide Judgment and order dated 17.02.2011, by Additional Sessions Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2010, which has been challenged by the applicant- appellant No.1(Original Accused No.1), in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 2011. The said Appeal has been admitted by this Court, by order dated 03rd March, 3 Cri.A.906.11 2011. 3. It also appears that, prosecution case mainly revolves around the two dying declarations of victim namely, Pramila W/o Ashok Mohite. First dying declaration was recorded by ASI at about 10.30 a.m., on 15.07.2008 i.e. on the date of incident itself and second dying declaration was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate, on the same date. It further appears that victim Pramila was burnt to the extent of 36%, and succumbed to the injuries, on 02.08.2007. According to the learned counsel, there is variance between the two dying declarations. 4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial, and has not committed any breach of condition thereof. It is further submitted that she was granted interim relief of bail and was released on same bail, on fresh bond till today i.e.21.03.2011, by this Court, by order 4 Cri.A.906.11 dated 3rd March, 2011 and urged that same be confirmed. It is further submitted that substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant are of short term sentences, and there is no likelihood of taking up the Appeal filed by the applicant, for final hearing in coming future. Hence, learned counsel urged for confirmation of interim relief of bail, during pendency of the appeal. 5. Learned APP opposed the present application vehemently, and submitted that both the dying declarations of the Victim- Pramila explicitly and categorically connected the applicant to the alleged crime, and further submitted that applicant does not deserve bail, and urged that present application preferred by the applicant be dismissed. 6. I have perused the Record and Proceeding with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and considering rival submissions advanced 5 Cri.A.906.11 by them, at the outset, the appeal filed by the applicant has been admitted by this Court, on 03.03.2011, challenging the impugned Judgment and order dated 17.02.2011, and same is pending. There is no likelihood of taking up the said appeal for final hearing in near future. 7. Besides that, substantive sentences inflicted upon the applicant are of short term sentences. Moreover, sight cannot be lost of the aspect that, the applicant was granted bail during pendency of trial, and there is no grievance by the respondent that applicant committed breach of any of the conditions. Moreover, it is also seen from the record and proceedings that applicant has already deposited fine amount imposed upon her, by the trial Court. 8. Having comprehensive view of the matter, the applicant deserves bail during pendency of the Appeal. Interim relief of bail granted by this Court, by order dated 3rd March, 2011 stands 6 Cri.A.906.11 confirmed, pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal No. 114 of 2011, suspending the aforesaid substantive sentences, inflicted upon the applicant till then. 9. Present Criminal Application stands disposed of, accordingly. Sd/- [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.] MTK