The court may grant bail when a person has been in custody for a longer period and there has been a delay in the disposal of the appeal, not attributable to the seeker of the bail.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This application for bail has been moved on behalf of appellant, namely, Ashok Singh, on the ground that he has wrongly been and falsely implicated in case FIR No.20/2009 of Police Station, Panchari for alleged commission of offences under Sections 302/304 RPC read with Section 4/25 Arms Act.

2. In terms of challan, on 20.06.2009 at 2.45 a telephonic information was received in P/S Panchari from PW-Man Singh, that on 19.06.2009 at 5.30 PM appellant assaulted the deceased, who was taken to Reasi Hospital in injured condition but he died on the way. On this information FIR No.20/2009 under Sections 302/34 RPC was registered and the investigation was carried out by the Incharge Police Station. During investigation, appellant was arrested on 23rd June, 2009 from a place Gouri Mitti in Tehsil Udhampur and after completing investigation in the case, challan was presented before the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur. After full-fledged trial, appellant came to be convicted and sentenced vide order dated 17.05.2013, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees 10,000 for the commission of offence under section 302 RPC and further fine of Rs.5000/- for commission of offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act. Against this order of conviction and sentence, present appeal has been filed.

3. Instant application has been filed merely on the ground that disposal of main appeal would likely to take some time and appellant who is in the Jail for the last 8 and ½ years and already undergone sufficient part of sentence. Co-accused, namely, Khazan Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2017. It is contended that both appellant and co-accused are booked under same FIR and under the same offences and even nothing has been adverse in the evidence against the appellant as in case of co-accused. It is also contended that criminal appeal may take a long time to finally conclude and the appellant further undertakes that he will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses nor with the prosecution evidence in any manner. It is further averred that prosecution witnesses were police witnesses; not even a single civilian was taken as witness, which further strengthens the case of the appellant that there are no chances of tampering with prosecution witnesses.

4. Learned counsel in support of his case also rely on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in Akhtari Bi v. State of Madhya Pardesh 2001 (4) SCC 355, wherein it has laid down that after conviction in the trial court if the appeal is not disposed of within five years, the convict may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court. Learned counsel also relies on orders passed by this Court in MP No.01/2016 (in Criminal Appeal No.03/2013) titled Ravinder Singh and others V. state of J&K, MP No.01/2017 (in Criminal Appeal) No.10/2017 titled Imtiyaz Ahmed V. State of J&K, Cr.MP No.151/2012 in Criminal Appeal No.16/2012 titled Gandharab Singh V. State of J&K and Cr.MP No.141/2012 in Criminal Appeal no.16/2012 titled Sewak Singh V. State of J&K and others. Learned counsel for the appellant also informs us that the appellant has been under incarceration for over 08 and ½ years. He further submits that considering the number of appeals of earlier vintage, which are pending in this Court, there is very little likelihood of the present appeal being heard in the near future. Consequently, he requests that the appellant be also admitted to bail in view of the long period of incarceration.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that appellant cannot claim bail on the ground of parity as co-accused was granted bail on different facts/grounds. The appellant is the main accused in the case and weapon of offence used in the commission of crime was recovered from him. He further contends that mode and method adopted by the appellant in commission of crime is horrible, which does n