1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3888 OF 2009 Ganesh s/o Shamrao Raut & ors. ..APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants; Mr K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 8th January, 2010 PER COURT : The plea of the applicants in this application is for suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and their enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. All the three applicants/appellants stand convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 read with sec.34, 498-A read with sec.34 and 201 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicants had killed deceased Manisha and had set fire to their house. The Trial Court at paragraph 34 has also recorded a finding that a false information came to be communicated by applicant no.2 that his house had caught fire on 2 account of electrical short-circuit. 2. Be that as it may, it is urged before us by the learned Counsel for the applicants that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the present applicants with the murder of deceased Manisha. It is also urged before us that there are no witnesses who speak about the presence of the applicants in the vicinity of the house at the time of the alleged commission of the offence. It is further stated that a irresistible conclusion, on the basis of the circumstances proved by the prosecution, cannot be drawn that it was the applicants and the applicants alone who had committed the aforesaid crime. It was lastly urged before us that the applicants no.2 & 3 who are the parents-in-law of deceased Manisha are old and infirm and they were on bail during trial and, therefore, this Court may examine the plea of these applicants for their release on bail pending the decision of the appeal. The learned A.P.P. has opposed grant of the bail to the applicants by urging before us that prima facie there is sufficient evidence to justify the conviction of the applicants for the offences with which they were charged and convicted. 3. At this stage we are not inclined to suspend the substantive sentence and enlarge the applicant no.1 i.e. husband of deceased Manisha on bail. We find that there is prima facie case against the applicant no.1 and, therefore, the plea of applicant no.1 cannot be entertained. However, looking to the fact that applicants no.2 & 3 are 3 aged about 52 and 47 years and were on bail during trial, we are inclined to accept their plea for suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and their enlargement on bail pending the decision of the appeal. We, however, impose a condition on the applicants no.2 & 3 that they shall report their presence at Pathardi police station on first Saturday of each month, between 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. 4. Prayer for release on bail of applicant no.1 is rejected and the application is allowed in respect of applicants no.2 and 3. The substantive sentence of applicants no.2 & 3 stands suspended pending the decision of this appeal and they be released on bail on each of the applicants no.2 & 3 furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on the condition which is adverted to above. Application partly allowed as aforestated. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap3888.09