V.K. Shali, J.—

1. This order shall dispose of aforesaid four applications under Section 389 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and enlargement of the appellants Chaman Lal, Suresh Kumar, Surender Singh and Devinder Singh on bail, during the pendency of the appeal.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that all these four appellants along with one Ramesh Chand (appellant No.5) were tried for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC apart from offences under Sections 201 and 218 IPC by the Court of Sessions at New Delhi. The allegations against the appellants were that they were responsible for the custodial death of one Madan Lal, who was picked up by the aforesaid police officials while they were posted at Patel Nagar. So far as the aforesaid four appellants are concerned, they were convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. In addition to this, appellant Chaman Lal was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for destruction of evidence and for framing incorrect record as a public servant under Sections 201 and 218 IPC apart from fine of Rs.2,000/-. Both the sentences qua the appellant Chaman Lal were to run concurrently. So far as the fifth appellant Ramesh Chand is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 IPC only and he was enlarged on bail by the Court of Sessions in exercise of its powers under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and continues to be on bail till date.

3. Mr. Kaul, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently prayed for grant of bail to the appellants and contended that as the appellants have been sentenced to maximum of five years of rigorous imprisonment for an offence of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC and they having undergone incarceration for a period of two years or so and there being no likelihood of the appeal being taken up in the immediate future, therefore, they be enlarged on bail after suspending their remaining sentence. It has also been contended by Mr. Kaul, the learned senior counsel that the parameters for grant of bail in a case of conviction are the same as are to be considered in a case where the bail is to be granted during the course of trial with an added factor as to the quantum of sentence to which the appellant has been sentenced. In addition to this, his behavior during the period of incarceration, the quantum of sentence which he has already undergone and the fact whether the appellants have an arguable case in appeal or not should also be considered. It was submitted that in the instant case, no concurrence of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has been obtained before registration of the FIR. The learned senior counsel had also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case titled Angana & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan; AIR 2009 SC 1669 to contend that in the said case also the appellants’ sentence was suspended and they were enlarged on bail by the Apex Court for offences under Sections 147/148/149/323/452/307 IPC although, they were convicted by the High Court. The learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in case titled Ranjit Kumar vs. State; 186 (2012) DLT 795 to support his submissions that in case the appellant was able to make out a prima facie arguable case on merits then he deserves to be enlarged on bail lest his appeal itself becomes infructuous on account of continued incarceration.

4. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, the learned counsel appearing for the CBI has contested the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. She has submitted that this was a case where the appellants were responsible for the custodial death of an innocent person in the p