LADU NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second application for suspension of sentence has been moved ostensibly on the ground that the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and was sentence to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Out of these seven years, the appellant has completed three years and eleven months. Thus, he has completed slightly more than 50% of the sentence. Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that since the appellant has completed more that 50% of the sentence, and since it is unlikely that the appeal would be decided within next three years, the benefit of bail should be granted to the appellant. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Salim Javed vs. State of Rajasthan, 2006 3 SCC(Cri) 354, Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P., 2001 9 SCC 211, Shailendra Kumar vs. State of Delhi,2000 3 Crimes 67, Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, 1999 4 SCC 421, Dinesh vs. State of Rajasthan,2006 1 RCC 46, Hemraj vs. State of Rajasthan,1999 2 RCC 1125.

(2.) On the other hand, Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that in none of the cases cited, the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court has laid down a strait jacket formula that after the completion of 50% of the sentence, the accused-person is entitled to be released on bail ipso facto. In fact, each case has to be decide on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present case, the appellant happens to be the main accused as according to the witnesses, it is he who had assaulted Dhannanath with an iron rod. Because of the injuries suffered by Dhannanath, eventually he expired. Moreover, the first application of the present appellant was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.9.2008. The said application was heard on merit. Therefore, no change of circumstances has occurred from 16.9.2008 till present.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel and perused the case law cited at the Bar.