UBED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Long pendency of the criminal appeals in this Court has always been matter of concern to this Court, lawyers and litigants, more particularly when the appellants upon their conviction are incarcerating. In this Court there is long queue of criminal appeals for their final hearing. The appellants naturally would insist upon and push forward their plea for suspension of their sentence and consequent release on bail, pending appeal. At the time of admission of an appeal or upon receipt of the lower Court's record, this Court, based on merits of evidence, in exercise of power under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), may or may not allow the prayer for suspension of sentence. There cannot be any difficulty up to that stage. Difficulties arise thereafter when upon rejection of claim for suspension of sentence, it becomes uncertain as to how much time will it take for final hearing and adjudication upon the appeal. Repeated attempts are made thereafter by filing successive applications for suspension of sentence and release on bail. Review of an order refusing bail, pending appeal, is impermissible under law. Should the Court, in such circumstance, based on period of custody already undergone by an appellant and chance of appeal of being taken up in near future remaining uncertain; reconsider the prayer for bail, is a question which has come forth.

(2.) The present case is an example, which has been placed under the heading "For Orders" on a 3rd attempt made by the appellant for suspension of sentence and his release on bail, by filing an interlocutory application, bearing I.A. No. 2363 of 2016. The appellant stands convicted of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years. He has also been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 313 of the IPC for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.

(3.) The dates of judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are 03.03.2015 and 04.03.2015, respectively. The appellant filed this appeal on 07.04.2015. By an order, dated 30.04.2015, the appeal was directed to be admitted, lower Court's record of the concerned sessions trial was called for with an observation that prayer for bail shall be considered on receipt of the lower Court's record. After receipt of the lower Court's record, the appellant pressed his prayer for suspension of sentence and his release on bail and took a plea that there has been unexplained delay in lodging of the complaint petition. By an order, dated 25.06.2015, his prayer for bail was, however, rejected with an observation that if the appeal was not to be heard within 9 months, the appellant may renew his prayer for bail. The appellant renewed his prayer for bail by filing an interlocutory application, bearing No. 772 of 2016, on 08.04.2016, i.e., nearly 1 year after rejection of his prayer for bail pending appeal. Considering, however, the nature of allegation, his prayer was again rejected by an order, dated 27.04.2016, with an observation that hearing of the appeal be expedited.