IMPORTANT POINT
The court may suspend a sentence if the appellant has served over 10 years and there are no extenuating circumstances for denial of bail.

ORDER :

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.7, Bikaner, District Bikaner in Sessions Case No.09/2020:

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail.

3. The salient facts of the case, as observed by this Court, are that on 10.12.2014, the complainant alleges that during a dispute between his daughter and her husband (son-in-law), the son-in-law entered their house and fatally wounded his wife by slitting her throat, causing her immediate death.

4. Mr. Devender Singh Thind, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant-appellant submits that though the merits of the case warrant intervention, but he is restricting his arguments to the prolonged period of incarceration endured by the appellant i.e. more than 10 years.

4.1 Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards EXP-29, the Fard Giraftari, which indicates that the arrest was effected on 11.12.2014 at about 5:00 PM.

4.2 The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone the custody of more than 10 years and there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

4.3 Further submissions have been made that there are no reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail. Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated 05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been made regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are applicable in the present case.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes the application for suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the society. However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant has already undergone the custody of more than 10 years during trial and after sentence.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal is pertaining to year 2022 and is pending at the stage of hearing and that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) observed an exception, which could be a broad guideline, which reads as follows :-

"1. Heinous nature of crime :

(a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy-no bail should be granted."

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra), while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to ‘life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court’ inter-alia, issued the following directions :-

“We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exerci