The court established that an appellant with no prior criminal record warrants bail when the appeal is unlikely to be heard soon.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA) 9 16-01-2026 Re: I.A. No. 3 of 2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for suspension of sentence and his release on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

3. By the impugned judgment and order dated

07.12.2018 /11.12.2018 passed by learned Adhoc, F.T.C. 1^st Munger in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2008, Trial No. 96 of 2018, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

4. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

5. The appellant’s prayer for release on bail during the pendency of appeal was earlier rejected thrice by this Court. While rejecting the appellant’s prayer for suspension of sentence by the order dated 25.02.2019, this Court had taken into account the merit of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegation against the co-accused Mukesh Yadav and the appellant is that they assaulted the informant’s brother by the butt of the gun and pistol on his head with intention to kill him. The other accused persons assaulted the informant by means of Kunda of the gun on his head, hands and all over the body. Due to the assault, the informant and his brother fell down on earth. Subsequently, Dilip Yadav fired form his gun on the chest of the informant’s brother, namely, Radhey Yadav which hit at his left rib cage and co-accused Mukesh Yadav fired from his gun at the left leg of Radhey Yadav and Raju Yadav (appellant) fired from pistol on the informant which hit on the earth.

It is apparent from the prosecution case that no one was injured from the firing of the appellant.

7. It is submitted that during trial, the appellant surrendered on 16.04.2004 and was released on bail on 23.09.2004 ( 5 months 7 days) and again he is in jail since 11.12.2018 (more than 7 years). Total period of custody is about 7 years 6 months. It is further submitted that the appellant never misused the privilege of bail during the trial.

8. A written objection has been filed on behalf of the State opposing the appellant’s prayer for suspension of sentence and his release on bail during the pendency of the appeal. From the said objection, it appears that the appellant has no criminal antecedent.

9. Upon perusal of the materials brought on record, it appears that the appellant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The appellant is in jail since 11.12.2018 and during the pendency of trial, he remained in jail for about 5 months. Total period of incarceration of the appellant is about 7½ years.

10. From the records, it appears that the appellant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant misused the liberty of bail during the pendency of trial.

11. However, the appeal is unlikely to be heard in near future. We are, therefore, inclined to release the convict/appellant on bail.

12. Under the circumstances, the sentence imposed on the present appellant under impugned judgment is hereby suspended.

13. The convict /appellant, namely, Raju Yadav is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Adhoc Fast Track Court, 1^st, Munger/ concerned court in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2008 / Trial No. 96 of 2018 arising out of Tarapur P.S. Case No. 150 of 2003.

14. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3 of 2025 stands allowed.

( Partha Sarthy, J)

(Khatim Reza, J)