Pintoo Samadar vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi
2008 Latest Caselaw 2185 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          Crl.M.(Bail) No.857/2008 in Crl. Appeal No.735/2005

%                        Date of Decision: 05.12.2008

Pintoo Samadar                                           .... Appellant
                         Through Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate

                                  Versus

The State of NCT of Delhi                               .... Respondent
                     Through Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be              YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in            NO
      the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The appellant/applicant seeks suspension of sentence and his

release on bail during the pendency of the appeal. This is his second

application.

His first application being Crl.M.A No.1719/2005 was dismissed

on 15th September, 2005 as not pressed.

The applicant has contended that he has prima facie case and his

appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and he relies on

Smt.Akhtari Bai v. State of M.P, 2002 Crl.Law Journal 1727. The

applicant also contends that he is in judicial custody for the last six

years.

The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that a

murderer will not keep his victim in his own premises and let his body

decompose and let the people in the vicinity come to know about it. The

learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has

a good prima facie case and his appeal is likely to be accepted.

The clinic of the applicant was found locked from outside and the

body of the deceased was kept in a plastic sack. PW.3 had seen the

deceased with the appellant on 27th May, 2002 and 28th May, 2002. The

evidence has also been led that applicant had answered the mobile

phone of the deceased at about 5.30 PM and 6 PM on 28th May, 2002.

The evidence has also been led that the applicant tried to arrange for a

taxi in the night of 29th May, 2002 and the phone of the deceased was

sold by the appellant to Sh.Suraj, PW.13 from whom it was recovered.

The appeals are listed in accordance with the period of

incarceration already undergone by the convicts and in the

circumstances it cannot be held that the appeal is not likely to be heard

within a measurable distance of time.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we are not

inclined to suspend the sentence of the applicant/appellant and to

release him on bail.

The application is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

December 05, 2008                                        V.K. SHALI, J.
'k'