Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Long pendency of the criminal appeals in this Court has always been matter of concern to this Court, lawyers and litigants, more particularly when the appellants upon their conviction are incarcerating. In this Court there is long queue of criminal appeals for their final hearing. The appellants naturally would insist upon and push forward their plea for suspension of their sentence and consequent release on bail, pending appeal. At the time of admission of an appeal or upon receipt of the lower Court's record, this Court, based on merits of evidence, in exercise of power under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), may or may not allow the prayer for suspension of sentence. There cannot be any difficulty up to that stage. Difficulties arise thereafter when upon rejection of claim for suspension of sentence, it becomes uncertain as to how much time will it take for final hearing and adjudication upon the appeal. Repeated attempts are made thereafter by filing successive applications for suspension of sentence and release on bail. Review of an order refusing bail, pending appeal, is impermissible under law. Should the Court, in such circumstance, based on period of custody already undergone by an appellant and chance of appeal of being taken up in near future remaining uncertain; reconsider the prayer for bail, is a question which has come forth.

9. This Court too must have been facing similar difficulties more than three decades ago of long pendency of appeals for final hearing, arising out of capital charges, as desirability of considering suspension of sentence and release of the appellants on bail on that ground had arisen. The issue came up for consideration before Full Bench of this Court, in case of Anurag Baitha (supra). The circumstance, which compelled the matter to be considered by the Full Bench is easily noticeable from the said decision. Till close of the year 1983, even murder appeals, preferred in the year 1972, and well beyond a decade were pending disposal for the fact that the Court had remained crippled by the absence of full one-third of its sanctioned strength, which was found to be the main reason for long pendency of the appeals. In paragraph 4 of the said decision, this Court observed, in case of Anurag Baitha (supra), as follows:-

This is by and large, the scenario of long pendency of Criminal Appeals in Patna High Court.

Apparently, thus, an appellant, in custody, has, as on date, to wait for five years or more after filing of the Single Bench Criminal Appeal, to get his appeal heard. Many of them might have spent some period in custody in course of investigation or trial, prior to conviction and presentation of appeal.

15. It is noteworthy that under Patna High Court Rules, criminal appeals, in which substantive sentence is ten years or less, are listed before Single Bench. In that background, Mr. Samrendra, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has suggested that the rule for consideration of suspension of sentence because of long pendency of appeal, as enunciated in case of Anuragh Baitha (supra), should be applied to cases of offences other than capital offences.