:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.857 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.720 OF 2005 Vijay Vasant Kedari and anr. ..Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr.B.R.Patil for the Applicant. Mrs. U.V.Kejriwal, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: J.N. PATEL & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED :10TH JANUARY,2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for suspension of sentence by the appellants who have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri by Judgment and order dated 1st June,2005 for having committed murder of Bakalkar. It is the prosecution case that the accused being accosted by police fired at the police personnel and the bullet hit one Bakalkar who fell down and died. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the :2: appellants submitted that the appellants are languishing in Jail from the year 2001 and that the evidence led by the prosecution is not such as it proves the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. Further, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish who was amongst the accused who actually used the fire arm and therefore, ultimately with such evidence the appellants accused are bound to get benefit of doubt, likely to succeed in their appeal. 4. The learned A.P.P. strongly objects for suspension of sentence and release of appellants on bail and submitted that the appellants are dangerous persons and have used the fire arm and fired towards the police officers who fortunately escaped. It is due to the gun fire shot one Bakalkar innocent person was killed. It is further submitted that the court has discussed the evidence on record and there is no reason to disbelieve the police officers who have seen the incident. In addition to that, the prosecution has led the evidence of ballistic expert which clearly establishes that the bullet injury suffered by the deceased from the fire arm found :3: in possession of the appellants. 5. On examining the evidence, we find that this is not a case where substantive sentence of the appellants/ accused can be suspended for the very reason that they are in jail since 2001. Application rejected. ( J.N. PATEL, J.) (R. S. MOHITE, J.)