Raghubir Singh vs Ut Of J&K
2021 Latest Caselaw 529 j&K

                 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
                           AT JAMMU


                                                Crl A(D) No. 12/2020
                                                CrlM No. 771/2020 in
                                                Crl Ref (L) No. 3/2020



Raghubir Singh                                      .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                      Through: Mr. Anil Gupta, Advocate.


                 Vs


UT of J&K                                                     ..... Respondent(s)

                      Through: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG.


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE


                                    ORDER

(PER: THAKUR-J)

1. This is an application seeking suspension of sentence and for grant of bail

to the applicant/appellant on the ground that the applicant/appellant has

put in more than thirteen years in jail.

2. Nominal rolls were called from the Superintendent of the Jail concerned,

which reflects that the applicant/appellant has put in more than thirteen

years in jail. It was not out of place to mention here that the appeal

against the order of conviction and sentence dated 23.7.2020 was filed in

this court on 6.8.2020.

3. The issue with regard to suspension of sentence and grant of bail on

account of delay in disposal of the criminal appeal has been considered by

a coordinate bench of this court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of J&K &

ors, CRA No. 12/2018 decided on 09.07.2020. The Bench in paragraphs

5, 6 and 7 held thus:

"5. In Akhtari Bi case the Apex Court held that speedy justice was a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. It was held that a right accrued in favour of the accused to apply for bail in a case where there was delay in the disposal of the trial and appeals in criminal cases. It was held that if an appeal was not disposed of within a period of 5 years for no fault of the appellant, such convicts may be released on bail on conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court. In computing the period of 5 years the delay for any period, which is requisite in preparation of the record and the delay attributable to the convict or his counsel can be deducted. It was, further clarified that there may be cases where even after the lapse of 5 years the convicts may, under the special circumstances of the case, be held not entitled to bail pending the appeals filed by them .

6. On perusal of the judgments (supra) it can be seen that while considering the prayer for bail on account of long pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the principles as laid in Akhtari Bi, have to be followed.

7. In the present case 5 years have not elapsed. The appeal was preferred in the year 2018 and therefore, 5 years period as mentioned in the judgment ( supra) has not been completed. Even otherwise assuming the said period was over, even then the court could not have mechanically granted bail, without considering whether the delay in the disposal of the appeal was attributable to the appellant. Considerations as mentioned in the case of Akhtari Bi, for refusal of bail beyond 5 years also indicate that grant of bail at the expiry of five years pendency

does not follow as a matter of routine. The nature, gravity and seriousness of the offence would also have to be seen. In that view of the matter, the case of the appellant cannot succeed for grant of bail on the basis of the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant the same is, therefore, rejected."

4. Considering the fact that the appeal has been preferred against the

judgment of conviction and sentence in the year 2020, following the ratio

of the judgment in Akhtari Bi vs. State of MP, AIR 2001 SC 1528 and

the view expressed by the coordinate Bench of this court of which one of

us (Thakur-J) was a member, we feel that since five years have not

elapsed from the date of the filing of the present appeal and the matter is

already listed in the final hearing column, no ground is made out for

suspending the sentence and granting bail in the present case.

5. Application is accordingly dismissed.

                                           (Puneet Gupta)               (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
                                                   Judge                                Judge
              Jammu:
              28.04.2021
              NARESH




MUNEESH SHARMA
2021.05.01 12:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document