Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—This second application for suspension of sentence has been moved ostensibly on the ground that the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and was sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Out of these seven years, the appellant has completed three years and eleven months. Thus, he has completed slightly more than 50% of the sentence.

2. Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that since the appellant has completed more that 50% of the sentence, and since it is unlikely that the appeal would be decided within next three years, the benefit of bail should be granted to the appellant. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Salim Javed vs. State of Rajasthan ((2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 354), Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P. ((2001) 9 SCC 211), Shailendra Kumar vs. State of Delhi (2000 (3) Crimes 67 (SC)), Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat ((1999) 4 SCC 421), Dinesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2006 (1) RCC 46), Hemraj vs. State of Rajasthan (1999 (2) RCC 1125).

3. On the other hand, Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document