1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2284 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.283 OF 2009 Sovindrao Lala Chavan ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the applicant (appointed) Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 11TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard 2. The applicant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment and order dated 24.4.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.209/2007. The appeal has been admitted by this Court on 13.7.2009. 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has moved this application for releasing the applicant/ accused on bail. The counsel submitted that C.A. report is not placed on record, the eye witness account is not believable, false accusation is made against father-in-law as husband of deceased was not surviving at that time. The so called dying declaration, according to learned counsel, is not believable and doctor did not examine the deceased for ascertaining her consciousness and fitness to make the statement. 4. The learned A.P.P. opposed the application on merits and submitted that even during trial the applicant was not on bail and there is abundant evidence against the applicant. 5. The original record and proceedings was called for. We have perused the same. We find that three persons were staying in the house, the applicant, 16 years old son and the deceased. The constable recorded statement of deceased on 23.8.2007 wherein she blamed her father-in-law regarding the injury she suffered. The document is Exh. 54 on the record. The incident took place on 22.8.2007. Sulochana died on 4.9.2007. It shows that she survived for nearabout 13 days. Her statement was recorded which the prosecution has utilised as dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable on 23.8.2007 i.e. on 3 the next day of the incident. We do not find any deliberate delay on the part of the prosecution agency in recording the statement of Sulochana. There are two eye witnesses to the incident who have deposed in favour of the prosecution. During the trial the applicant/ accused was not on bail. Considering all these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail though the lerned counsel submitted that as regards the age of the applicant, this bail application be considered sympathetically. The applicant is said to be of more than 60 years. At present this Court is hearing serially 2007 jail appeals. This appeal also could be heard within reasonable time. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the matter, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The application stands rejected. 6. The High Court Legal Services Authority shall disburse the fees to Shri Dighe, learned counsel who is appointed on behalf of the applicant/ appellant in respect of disposal of the criminal application. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) fmp/cri2294.09