0704appa83.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. APPA NO.83 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.06 OF 2011. Purushottam Yadavrao Mate ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.M. Daga, Adv. for the applicant. Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for the State. CORAM : MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : 7th APRIL, 2011. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant – original accused no.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant – original accused no.1 along with another has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.Code for causing the death of Charandas. The applicant is now seeking bail. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is 70 years of age and hence on the ground of old age, he be released on bail. To support this contention, he has placed 0704appa83.11.odt 2/3 reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1753 (S.C.) (Anil Ari ..vs.. State of West Bengal). Mr.Daga, pointed out that in the said case bail was granted only on the ground that the accused was 70 years of age. We have perused the said decision. It is noticed that there were about 18 accused persons in the said case. The case was of the year 1994. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the Supreme Court granted bail to the applicant on account of his age. It is pertinent to note that in the very same judgment the Supreme Court has observed as under - 11. In cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar ..vs.. Narendra and ors. (2002(9) SCC 364) it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302, IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. 12. The above position was highlighted 0704appa83.11.odt 3/3 in Kishori Lal ..vs.. Rupa and others [2004(7) SCC 638]; Vasant Tukaram Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra [2005(5) SCC 281] and Gomti Vs. Thakurdas and Ors. (2007(11) SCC 160).” (emphasis supplied) 4. In the present case, it is seen that it was only the applicant who assaulted Charandas with a knife. There is one eye witness to the incident i.e. PW 1 Suman, who is wife of the deceased. She has stated that when she was cleaning utensils, she heard hue and cry of her husband. therefore, she rushed to her husband and saw present applicant taking out knife which he had stabbed in the stomach of her husband. In view of the above fact, we are not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE chute