DALIP SINGH ALIAS DEEPA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court, - -vide order, dated 19th December, 2008 has referred the present case to Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The reference order reads as follows : - -

(2.) DELAY in completing trials after filing of charge report (challan) by the Police and disposal of an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence, and the entitlement of an accused for the grant of bail or the convict to have his sentence suspended in case of delay in the hearing of his appeal post conviction has engaged the attention of the Courts in several ways. The questions that primarily require to be considered by the Full Bench are whether under -trials are entitled to bail when trials are unduly prolonged and whether any time frame can be provided for the grant of bail. And whether convicts undergoing imprisonment for life must undergo a minimum period of sentence of imprisonment before their pleas for suspension of their sentence are considered. What means can be devised so that undertrials or convicts do not misuse the concession of bail or the suspension of sentence.

(3.) THE principles that were laid down were considered by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh versus State of Punjab, 2005 (4) RCR (Crl.) 103. The Supreme Court held that the directions contained in Dharam Pal's case (supra) were only in the nature of guidelines and the High Court should not be understood to have laid down as an invariable rule to be observed with mathematical precision. Indeed, pending disposal of an appeal cannot be laid down or limited in a straitjacket formula so as to be mathematically applied to each and every case. It is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that each case is to be decided in accordance with its own facts and circumstances. However, certain guidelines can be followed for uniform application to undertrials and convicts.