The court may grant bail if the period of custody is excessive and not justified by the expeditious progress of the case.

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

5 22-12-2025 Re.: I.A. No. 01 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the present appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 04 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-b) of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 03 months. Further, sentenced to undergo RI for 04 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 26 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 03 months and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act , he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further SI for 03 months. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record. Further, it has been submitted that the appellant has been in custody since 04.08.2021 and has already remained in custody for 04 years and 04 months. It is submitted that there is no chance of the appeal being taken up for hearing in near future. Further, it is submitted that the only material against the appellant is that he is alleged to have called the deceased and accompanied him, and there is no specific allegation of assault against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Ash Mohammad Vs.

Shiv Raj Singh reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the period of custody is a relevant factor and the appellant has already remained in custody for more than seven years. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the case of Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab , reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the suspension of sentence is justified where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 4 SCC

421

5. Learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, during the pendency of the present criminal appeal, let the sentence of the appellant, namely, Md. Fateh Khan @ Fateh Khan @ Fatwa, be suspended and he be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-XIV, Bhagalpur in Session Trial No.

556/2021, arising out of Habibpur P.S. Case No. 94/2021.

7. Realization of fine, if any, shall remain stayed during the pendency of the present appeal.

8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)