Long-term custody without appeal hearing and absence of aggravating circumstances justify suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Order :

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge No.3, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.27/2016 :

2. The first application for suspension of sentence filed by the applicant-appellant was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2021.

3. The appellant-applicant has preferred this second application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail on the ground that petitioner has remained in custody for more than 10 years.

4. The appellant-applicant has preferred the present application on the solitary ground that he has remained in custody for more than 10 years and there is no likelihood of appeal being taken up for hearing in near future. Relying upon the directions of Hon’ble The Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, learned counsel prayed that the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned counsel argued that no reasons and / or aggravating circumstances exist for denial of bail to the applicant while placing reliance on the order dated 05.10.2021 of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021. He read the relevant part/observations made therein and submitted that the High Court should grant bail if the accused has served more than 10 years’ sentence, except certain circumstances, and that none of the exceptions are applicable in the present case.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed 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 sentence of over 10 years during trial and after sentence.

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

8. It is to be noted that long list of criminal appeals even filed in the year 2008 are pending hearing; there is no possibility that the present appeal can be taken up for hearing in near future.

9. Hon’ble The 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 exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail.”

10. Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also observations were