AAQIB AHMED MIR Vs. UT OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/appellant has moved this application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in his favour.

(2.) Although while seeking bail by virtue of the aforesaid application, the applicant/appellant has contended that there is no legal evidence against him to connect him to the alleged crime, yet, during the course of hearing, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the applicant/appellant, has confined his arguments to grant of bail on the ground of long incarceration of the applicant/appellant.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant that the applicant/appellant has been in custody, in the instant case, for the last about 07 years, while as, he has been sentenced to imprisonment of 12 years by virtue of the impugned judgment/order of conviction/sentence. It has been submitted that the applicant/appellant has served more than half of the sentence imposed against him and, as such, he is entitled to grant of bail. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisonners vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 as also the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar alias Nillu vs. State, ( Bail App No. 1724/2021, decided on 21/3/2022).