The court determined that prolonged custody and lack of expeditious appeal trial warranted the suspension of the appellant's sentence.

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

4 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 imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 302 /34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

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 06.06.2018 and has remained in custody for about 07 years and 06 months. It is submitted that the appeal is not likely to be taken up for hearing in near future. The allegation against the appellant is that an iron rod is alleged to have been used by him during the course of the occurrence, and no deadly weapon is stated to have been used. It is further submitted that, at best, the case may fall under the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC. 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, Shankar Yadav @ Saheb Yadav @ Shankar Kumar, 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 Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai in Session Trial No. 91/2019, arising out of Barahiya P.S. Case No. 89/2018.

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

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

(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)