Prolonged incarceration without imminent appeal hearing justifies suspension of sentence, aligning with Supreme Court directives on bail for long-term convicts.

Order :

1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.24/2015 :

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. Brief facts of this case are that the incident had happened on 27.04.2015, and due to some small altercation pertaining to Rs.100/-, a single blow by rod was inflicted by the present accused on the deceased.

3.1 Learned counsel for the 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. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone sentence of 11 years, 10 months and 21 days with remission as on 11.02.2025 (actual custody period 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.

5. 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.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General 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 11 years, 10 months and 21 days with remission as on 11.02.2025 during trial and after sentence.

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

9. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal pertaining to year 2024 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of the present appeal in near future.

10. 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. "

11. 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 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