NETRAM KISHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is 9th application (LA. No. 2000/99) under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence moved by the appellant No. 1, Netram s/o Kishan Lal. Admittedly, six applications for suspension of the sentence moved by this appellant/applicant were rejected on merits. One application for temporary bail was allowed on 20-1-1998.

(2.) WE have heard Shri J. P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant at length. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate. Shri Gupta has not dilated his argument on the factual merits of the case, but he has simply confined himself to the point that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pritpal Singhal v. State of Delhi, (1999) 1 SCC 169 the appellant/applicant deserves to be bailed out obviously because he has been languishing in jail custody for the last more than eight years. He has vehemently argued that whatever the merits or the gravity of the case, the liberty of the individual cannot be lightly tightened in this way and he cannot be kept behind the bars for such a long time without hearing his grievances by way of appeal. He has submitted that in the present prevailing scenario, keeping in mind the huge pendency of cases, it is very likely that the hearing of the case may further prolong for sometime, and in view of this prevailing situation the appellant/applicant deserves to be bailed out.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has further drawn our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1987 (II) MPWN Short Note 117, Jasrath v. State of M. P. and a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 2147, Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab.