MAGANBHAI BINDESHWARI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Prachchak, learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State. This is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 389 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for suspension of sentence and his release on bail pending disposal of the appeal. The applicant has been convicted for the offences of murder punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 294 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad vide judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2003, passed in Sessions CASE No. 121 of 2002, against which Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2003 has been preferred and is pending before this Court.

(2.) Learned Advocate, Mr. Agrawal, submitted that the applicant has been convicted for offence of murder and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He came to be arrested on 16/3/2002 and is in jail since then. He submitted that the appeal is not likely to be taken up in near future looking to the pendency of the appeals and the fact that the paper book is yet not ready. The applicant has a constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy justice which is violated and, therefore, this application may be entertained. Mr.Agrawal relied upon following decisions. Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 1701 Babu Singh and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1978 SC 527 2.1 Mr.Agrawal submitted that if at the end, the appeal is allowed, the appellant cannot be compensated for the period of incarceration in jail and therefore the sentence may be suspended by allowing this application and the applicant may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed, fit and proper.

(3.) Learned A.P.P., Mr. Prachchak, has opposed this application. He submitted that this is a successive application for suspension of sentence and bail. No change in circumstance is indicated, except, afflux of time. Mr. Prachchak, submitted that the appeal is of the year 2003, whereas the Court is taking up matters which are much older where the convicts are also in jail. Mr. Prachchak, submitted that in light of decisions of the Apex Court as rendered in case of Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2005 (7) S.C.C.387 and in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Another, reported in 2004 S.C.C.(CRIMINAL) 1977, the application may be rejected.