1 Criminal Appl. No.4180 of 2010 in Cri.Appeal No.199 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4180 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.199 OF 2010 Hanmant Sadashiv Andhale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.G.P.Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 13/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and his enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. The applicant is alleged to have killed his wife deceased Kashibai and on the aforesaid allegations, the applicant stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302 of The IPC. 2. The Trial Court, in its judgment, which is impugned in the 2 Criminal Appl. No.4180 of 2010 in Cri.Appeal No.199 of 2010 appeal, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had established the case against the present applicant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances which are curled out by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are, "1) Homicidal death of deceased Kashibai, 2) Motive of the applicant to have committed the crime on account of previous discord between the applicant and deceased Kashibai, 3) The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the applicant, and 4) lack of explanation by the applicant accused in respect of the circumstances in respect of the death of deceased Kashibai." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged before us that except the circumstances that the deceased died of homicidal death, the other circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Learned A.P.P. has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court and has urged before us for dismissal of the present application. It is also urged before us by the learned A.P.P. that the applicant was not on bail during trial. 5. The submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicant are pertains to re-appreciation of evidence, which can not be done at this stage. Suffice it to state that the Trial Court has 3 Criminal Appl. No.4180 of 2010 in Cri.Appeal No.199 of 2010 convicted the applicant and there appears to be some material against the applicant. The sufficiency of the said material would be examined at the time of final hearing of the appeal. This application therefore deserves to be dismissed. However, we expedite the hearing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant would file private paper book within 6 weeks from today. We, therefore, permit the applicant to file private paper book and direct that the appeal be listed for final hearing as soon as the private paper book is filed. 6. Application is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and directions. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/DEC. 2010/cri.appl.4180-10