RAMKUNWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RELYING on the cases of Angana & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 3 SCC 767], Takht Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. [(2001) 10 SCC 463], and Dara Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Cr. Misc. Second Bail (for Suspension of Sentence) Application No.9/2010, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.575/2008, decided on 25.01.2011], Mr. Harendra Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that in case the accused-appellant has served a substantial part of his sentence and in case the criminal appeal cannot be decided within the remaining period of the sentence, then the sentence of the accused-appellant should be suspended. According to him, the accused-appellant has already served three years and eleven months out of the seven years of his sentence. Thus, he has undergone a substantial part of his sentence.

(2.) ON the other hand, Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that even the cases referred by the learned counsel for the appellant do not lay down a universal principle. Therefore, each case would have to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

(3.) ALLEGEDLY, the occurrence had taken place on 02.06.2007. During the course of trial, the appellant was not on bail. He was arrested on 08.06.2007 and till present he is in custody. Therefore, he has completed three years and nine months of incarceration. Thus, he has completed a substantial part of his sentence. Moreover, he has faced the consequences of his alleged criminal action. The alleged offence is not so much a crime against the society at large, as it is an offence against a particular person. Therefore, by keeping him incarcerated, the society does not derive any benefit. Since he has already faced the music for his alleged criminal conduct, in the interest of justice it would be better to grant him the benefit of bail.