The appellate court can entertain successive bail applications, and must consider suspension of sentence before granting bail.

1.The petitioner assails the order dated 2-6-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in Criminal M. P. No. 306 of 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2000.

2. On an application filed under S.389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') seeking suspension of the sentence, the impugned order came to be passed. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court in C. C. No. 14 of 1997 for the offences under S.471, I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Having been aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, Srikakulam. An application was also filed along with the appeal. That Criminal M. P. No. 299 of 2000 was dismissed on 31-5-2000 for want of valid reasons, inter alia, in the petition. Thereafter, the appeal was made over to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioner filed another petition in Criminal M. P. No. 306 of 2000 under S.389(1) of the Code seeking suspension of the sentence and enlargement on bail. That application having been dismissed on the premise that a second application cannot be considered, the earlier application in Criminal M. P. No. 299 of 2000 having been dismissed by the Sessions Court, assailing the same, the present Revision Case has been filed before this Court.

3. S.389(1) of the Code is the relevant provision, which enables the appellate Court, for reasons to be recorded, to suspend the execution of the sentence passed against the appellant and if the convicted person is in confinement, to order his release on bail or on his own bond. Without suspending the execution of the sentence, it is axiomatic that no order for releasing the convict on bail or on his own bond could be passed. S.390 of the Code enables the appellate Court to direct the accused to be arrested and brought before it and commit him to prison, pending disposal of the appeal or the appellate Court may admit him to bail. This power can be exercised by the appellate Court notwithstanding the fact that an order has been passed earlier under S.389(1) of the Code. The provisions of S.389 and S.390 of the Code envisage that the granting of bail is separate from the provisions of S.436 to 439 of the Code. S.436 to 439 of the Code enable the Court to enlarge the accused on bail on different considerations and on different circumstances, as is envisaged by the respective Sections of the Code. The power under these Sections can be exercised whenever any person is accused of the commission of any offence, either bailable or non - bailable, and is arrested or detained without any warrant of the Court.

4. So, on perusal of these Sections, it is obvious that the discretionary power of the Court can be exercised under these Sections i.e. 436 to 439 of the Code at a stage preceding the termination of the trial. When once the accused is convicted and sentenced appropriately, in my considered view, S.436 to 439 have no application. Then, the sections germane for consideration on such conviction, by the appellate Court on a petition presented by the convict are as afore - discussed, S.389 and S.390 of the Code. Under both these provisions, a bail can be granted to the convict.

5. It is manifest that successive applications can be filed, of course, on recurring cause of action or changed circumstances seeking bail. Merely, because a bail application filed by the accused is dismissed, it cannot be said that no second application can be maintained. That being the position, I do not see any reason as to why the appellate Court cannot exercise such a power of gran