YUSUF GAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioners have been sentenced to different sentences including imprisonment for life for their conviction under section 302 IPC etc. by judgment and order dated 12.11.97 passed by an Additional Session Judge, South 24-Parganas, Alipore. They preferred the present appeal against their conviction and sentence on 6.1.98 and have also prayed for bail pending hearing of the appeal. They moved for bail before a Division Bench of this court earlier also, after filing the appeal but their prayer for bail was rejected by the Division Bench on 22.4.98. They have now prayed again for bail. It is true that the rejection of bail earlier does not necessarily debar praying for bail again later. The learned Advocate for the petitioners however refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 527 and submits that the petitioners should be enlarged on bail pending the hearing of the appeal as the appeal is not likely to be heard very early due to accumulation of cases in this court. In the said decision of the Supreme Court initially the petitioners were acquitted by the trial court subsequently on appeal by the State the High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to imprisonment and then the matter was taken before the Supreme Court. In paragraph 14 of the said decision it has been observed by the Supreme Court thus in connection with the question of granting bail:-

(2.) IT is therefore evident that the nature of the charge and the punishment which the charge may entail are also matters for consideration along with other factors in considering the question of granting bail. In the said decision of the Supreme Court some observations made in the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2147 was also quoted. In the said observations it was recorded inter alia that it would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of 5 or 6 years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Anxiety was also expressed that (ultimate) acquittal would be of little avail to a person who has already served out his term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it. The present case is a case where the petitioners have been sentenced to imprisonment for life on 12.11.97 for an offence of murder and thereafter they have preferred this appeal in January 1998. IT is not a case where the petitioners have already served out imprisonment for 5 or 6 years or a major part of the sentence of life imprisonment. IT is true that on their conviction the petitioners have by this time undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of about 7 months after the filing of the appeal or about 9 months from the date of conviction. But it is now premature to say that the appeal will not be heard within a reasonable time. IT cannot be said yet that time is now ripe for releasing the petitioners on bail on ground of delay in hearing the appeal, particularly having regard to the gravity of the offence for which the petitioners have been convicted and the punishment imposed for the same. On a perusal of the impugned judgment also we cannot say that the impugned conviction of the accused persons is not even prima facie sustainable, whatever may be the ultimate decision on a full fledged hearing of the appeal. That being so we reject the present prayer for bail. The Additional Registrar-I is however directed to see that the appeal becomes ready for hearing expeditiously and is thereafter placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing without undue delay. S. Barman Roy, J.-I agree. Aplication rejected