ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. This application is filed by petitioner/appellant/Accused No. 5 in Cr. No. 597 of 2016 of Mailardevpally Police Station, who was subjected to trial in S.C. No. 599 of 2017 in the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. On evaluation of the evidence on record, the trial Court held the petitioner/appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 370 (4) r/w. Sections 109 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), convicted under Section 235 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) and sentenced to undergo rigorous Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 370 (4) of IPC and fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.

2. Challenging the said judgment appeal is preferred by the petitioner/Accused No. 5. Pending consideration of the appeal, this application is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioner; false allegations were made and she was no way involved in the alleged offence of rape committed on her two daughters. He further submits that the petitioner is a woman and suffering from some health issues and therefore, she should be released on bail pending consideration of appeal. He placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in Crl.A. No. 328 of 2021 granting bail to Accused No. 6 who was the appellant in the said criminal appeal.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that appellant has committed a heinous crime against her own daughters and is not entitled to sympathetic consideration at this stage. Taking through the evidence as assessed by the Sessions Court, she submits that the depositions of the daughters of petitioner who are the victims of a heinous crime committed by several persons at the instance of petitioner speaks volumes about the bent mind of the petitioner.

5. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court. As noticed by the trial Court in the deposition of PWs. 2 and 3, who are the victim Girls No. 1 and 2 respectively and daughters of Accused No. 5, have narrated how their mother tortured them, caused injuries to their private parts in the most heinous manner. subjected them to victimisation by other accused, allowed other accused to enter into their house and how they were subjected to rape repeatedly.

6. While charge against Accused No. 6 is one of indulging in rape against minor girls, the crime alleged and proved against Accused No. 5 is more heinous. Being a mother of two minor girls, the manner in which she exploited her children has to be viewed more seriously as compared to the offence committed by Accused No. 6.

7. In the case on hand, after full trial and on thorough assessment of evidence brought on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 370 (4) r/w. Sections 109 and 506 of IPC.

8. Once the competent Court holds the accused guilty and sentenced the accused for life imprisonment, granting bail to convict pending appeal is an exception, to be exercised in the peculiar facts of a case. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts consistently emphasising the right of the accused for speedy trial and speedy disposal of appeals against conviction and sentence.

9. In Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, it was held:

"5. ... "We feel that if an appeal is not disposed of within the aforesaid period of 5 years, for no fault of the convicts, such convicts may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the court. In computing the period of 5 years, the delay for any period, which is requisite in preparation of the record and the delay attributable to the convict or his counsel can be deducted. There may be cases where even after the lapse of 5 years the convicts may, under the special circumsta