C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

The nine applicants, who are the accused in Sessions Case No.377 of 2010 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali registered for the offences under Sections-147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of Bhattiprolu Police Station, Guntur District, filed Criminal Appeal No.607 of 2011, which was admitted by this Court on 08.6.2011. At the time of filing of the appeal, the appellants have not filed application for grant of bail, obviously, knowing the convention/practise of this Court that in such appeals arising out of conviction for the offence under Section-302 IPC and sentencing of the accused for life, this Court seldom grants bails pending the appeals. However, interim applications for bail were filed by some of the appellants on special occasions such as performance of obsequies or marriage of their family members.

2. The present application is filed by all the appellants based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291, The appellants have pleaded that they have been undergoing imprisonment for the last 5 years, besides their being in jail for three months during the pendency of the trial and that, though the Criminal Appeal filed by them is ready for hearing, the same could not be taken up as, the Criminal Appeals pertaining to the year 2010 are still being heard. It is further pleaded that as the disposal of the Criminal Appeal filed by them is likely to take some more time, they and their family members will be put to a lot of suffering due to their prolonged incarceration pending the appeal.

3. Considering the afore-mentioned averments, this Court adjourned the case to enable the learned Public Prosecutors for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to ascertain the view of both the States. The relevant portion of the order passed by us on 26.10.2016, while adjourning the bail application, is reproduced hereunder:

"We prima facie feel that it is wholly unjust to incarcerate the life convicts for long number of years on the ground of pendency of Criminal Appeals. We have, therefore, called upon the learned Public Prosecutors for both the States to place before under Section the views of both the States with regard to the request of the convicts, who are serving the sentence for their release in Criminal Appeals pending for a number of years. Both of them have requested for an adjournment for reporting on this aspects."

4-5. Today, at the hearing, the learned Public Prosecutors for both the States submitted that as the grant of bail to the convicts pending the Criminal Appeal is always the discretion of the Court, the States may not have much say in this regard and that, depending upon the facts of each case, the States will express their views through the Public Prosecutors, considering which, the Court may pass appropriate orders on bail applications.

A situation of this nature arose before the Honble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh (1 supra), wherein it has made the following observations:

"The practise not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment was evolved in the High Courts and in this Court on the basis that once a person has been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, he should not be let loose, so long as his conviction and sentence are not set aside, but the underlying postulate of this practise was that the appeal of such person should be disposed of within a measurable distance of time, so that if he is ultimately found to be innocent, he would not have to remain in jail for an unduly long period. The rationale of this practise can have no application where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years. It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Can the Court