rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2008 Nimba Hari Wagh & Ors. .. Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate with S.B.Shetye for the Applicant. Mr.D.R.More - A.P.P. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . Heard. . The present Applicant No. 1 is original Accused No.4 whereas the Applicant No.2 is original Accused No.2. The present Applicants are respectively father and mother of Accused No.1 Sandeep. The Accused No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is directed to undergo life imprisonment. Besides conviction under section 302 he is also convicted for the offence 2 punishable under section 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Court so also under section 201 of Indian Penal Code. 3. So far as the present Applicant No. 4 is concerned, who is the father of Accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, however, convicted for the offence punishable under section 498A and 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer two years regorous imprisonment on each count. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The Applicant No. 2 is convicted only under section 201 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to one year’s regorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both the Applicants were released on bail during trial. The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that they have not misused the liberty. Even after conviction the Applicant No.2 has been released on bail. I have perused the Judgment and the order. In my view, it is fit case for grant of bail to the present Applicants. In the result, it is directed that the Applicants be released on bail on the same terms and conditions on which they were released 3 on bail during the trial, however on executing fresh bonds and payment of fine. Appeal admitted. Application disposed of. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.)