ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 392 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court. Series of applications made by the appellant for suspension of sentence and bail were rejected by the High Court. The last one has been rejected by the impugned order.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone actual incarceration for a period of more than 8½ years. The antecedents of the appellant are not brought on record. Perhaps the High Court was under the impression that the application for suspension of sentence and bail cannot be considered, unless the appellant undergoes 10 years of actual incarceration. To say the least, there is no such rule which requires an accused to undergo 10 years of actual incarceration before his application for suspension of sentence and bail is considered. It all depends on the facts of each individual case. Suffice it to say that, considering the pendency of criminal appeals in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the appeal of the year 2015 is not likely to