The judgment established the principle that a successive bail application can be entertained only in case of a substantial change in circumstances and highlighted the exceptional circumstances for granting bail in cases involving conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Prachchak, learned A. P. P. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State. This is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 389 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for suspension of sentence and his release on bail pending disposal of the appeal. The applicant has been convicted for the offences of murder punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 294 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad vide judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2003, passed in Sessions CASE No. 121 of 2002, against which Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2003 has been preferred and is pending before this Court. 1. The applicant had earlier preferred application for suspension of sentence and release on bail bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 9771 of 2003, which came to be disposed of by order dated 10/12/2003 which runs as under. Rule. Learned A. P. P. , Shri Prachchak waives service of Rule for the respondent-State. Shri Divetia for Shri Agrawal for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Bail Application at this stage with liberty to file fresh Bail Application after the paper Book is ready. Permission granted. Dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Sd/- (B. J. Shethna, J) (J. R. Vora, J.)2. The applicant had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 14680 of 2005 for temporary bail which also came to be rejected by this Court by order dated 16/12/2005. The present application preferred by the applicant is, therefore, a successive one.

( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Agrawal, submitted that the applicant has been convicted for offence of murder and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He came to be arrested on 16/3/2002 and is in jail since then. He submitted that the appeal is not likely to be taken up in near future looking to the pendency of the appeals and the fact that the paper book is yet not ready. The applicant has a constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy justice which is violated and, therefore, this application may be entertained. Mr. Agrawal relied upon following decisions. Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. v. R. S. Nayak and Anr. reported in A. I. R. 1992 SC 1701 babu Singh and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A. I. R. 1978 SC 527 2. 1 Mr. Agrawal submitted that if at the end, the appeal is allowed, the appellant cannot be compensated for the period of incarceration in jail and therefore the sentence may be suspended by allowing this application and the applicant may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed, fit and proper.

( 3 ) LEARNED A. P. P. , Mr. Prachchak, has opposed this application. He submitted that this is a successive application for suspension of sentence and bail. No change in circumstance is indicated, except, afflux of time. Mr. Prachchak, submitted that the appeal is of the year 2003, whereas the Court is taking up matters which are much older where the convicts are also in jail. Mr. Prachchak, submitted that in light of decisions of the Apex Court as rendered in case of Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2005 (7) S. C. C. 387 and in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Another, reported in 2004 S. C. C. (CRIMINAL) 1977, the application may be rejected.

( 4 ) WE have taken into consideration rival side contentions. 1. There is no dispute about the fact that this is a successive application for suspension of sentence and bail. There cannot be any dispute about settled proposition of law that there is no bar or prohibition on preferring successive bail applications. 2. What is required to be examined is in what circumstances can a successive bail applications be entertained. In this regard, reference may be held to State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, reported in A. I. R. 1989 SC 2292. Where the Apex Court observed that a successive bail application can be preferred only