1 8.appa1577-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1577 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1054 OF 2008 Dinesh Rajendra Sharma. ..Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .......... Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State. .......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This is second bail application filed by the Applicant. First bail application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17th November, 2009 being Criminal Application No.1124 of 2008. We are in agreement with the learned A.P.P. that it is not open to the Applicant to file the present Application without taking steps for restoration of the earlier Application which was allowed to be dismissed for default. However, PPD 2 8.appa1577-10 that is only a technical issue which is curable one. In the circumstances, we have heard the Counsel for the Applicant on merits in the present Application itself. 3. Going through the evidence on record, in our opinion, the view expressed by the trial Court that there are strong circumstances to indicate complicity of the Applicant in the commission of the offence, is a plausible view. The evidence indicates that the Applicant and the deceased were last seen together. The deceased is none-else but the wife of the Applicant. She succumbed to death due to severe injuries caused to her on the vital part of the body. Deceased, being wife, was in company of the Applicant during the relevant time. The Applicant has not offered any plausible explanation as to how the death of his wife was caused. Several injuries caused to the deceased which have been proved by evidence of PW-8 have remained un-explained. The said injuries are fatal. The argument of the Applicant that the deceased was suffering from mental disorder is an attempt to persuade the Court that it may be a case of suicide. However, such argument will have to be stated to be rejected considering the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased which have remained unexplained. We are conscious of the fact that the minor children born out of wedlock of the Applicant and 3 8.appa1577-10 the deceased were witnesses to the incident, but, unfortunately they turned hostile while deposing before the Court. That however would make no difference considering the other overwhelming evidence pointing finger to the involvement of the Applicant. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, it is not a case for grant of bail. 5. Counsel for the Applicant, at this stage, submits that in that case the Applicant be allowed to withdraw the Application. We have no difficulty in allowing the Applicant to withdraw this application, but, at the same time, we place on record that we have already expressed our opinion on the merits of the controversy. The Applicant would be free to file fresh application for bail only in changed circumstances or on the grounds which may be permissible in law. If fresh application for bail is filed by the Applicant, the same will have to be considered keeping in mind the settled legal position about the successive Bail Applications filed by the Applicant/Accused. 6. Counsel for the Applicant submits that at least hearing of the Appeal be expedited inasmuch as Appeal pertains to year 2008. Insofar as this request is concerned, we place on record that as per the present assignment the cases covered under category "Convicts in 4 8.appa1577-10 Jail" are already considered as expedited category of cases. The Applicant will have to come in queue in the said category of cases. Accordingly, the Office shall process the appeal as per its turn under caption : "Convicts in Jail". 7. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)