The main legal point established is the consideration of bail under Section 389 CrPC based on the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant-applicants have been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 21.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilara in Sessions Case No. 96/2020:-

2. They have filed these applications under Section 389 CrPC seeking suspension of sentences awarded by the trial court.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to both the applications for suspension of sentences.

4. Two more criminal cases in addition to the one at hand have been registered against the appellant Saleem Kha, whereas a total of 11 cases are registered against the appellant Dinesh Kumar, of which 5 pertain to jail offences.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Girish Choudhary and Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi, representing the appellant-applicants, vehemently and fervently urged that the case of the appellant Dinesh Kumar stands on an identical footing with that of co-accused Ghewarram, whose application for suspension of sentence No. 327/2022 has been accepted by this court vide order dated 24.05.2022. The only evidence which has been portrayed by the prosecution to connect the said appellant with the crime is in the form of recoveries of clothes and sandals of that appellant. He urged that the material prosecution witnesses Dhagli Devi and Dariyav Devi did not identify the appellant Dinesh Kumar. They submitted that though the witness Dariyav Devi identified the accused Saleem Kha in her evidence, but this identification was made for the first time during the sworn testimony of the witness, thus, the same is of no consequence. The appellants have remained in custody for a period in excess of 10 years and the hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicants have placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suleman v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Misc. Application No. 764/2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 491/2022 decided on 15.09.2022 with SMW (Crl) No. 4/2021] and urged that the appellant-applicants deserve indulgence of bail in this matter.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Choudhary and Mr. Bishnoi and submitted that the case involves gruesome charges of dacoity with triple murder. The prosecution has given cogent and convincing evidence to connect the appellants with the heinous crime. Hence, he implored the court to dismiss the applications for suspension of sentences.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. At the outset, we may note that in the case of Suleman (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, no absolute proposition has been laid down that all life convicts, whose appeals are pending in the High Courts and who are in custody for more than 10 years, must unexceptionally be released on bail. We may note here that the present is case with gruesome allegations of dacoity associated with triple murder and thus, this court would be circumspect while considering the matter even at the stage of bail during pendency of the appeal. So far as the appellant-applicant Dines