AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. We are not inclined to grant the prayer for suspension of sentence insofar as the Appellant Vishal Yadav is concerned. The prime reason being that we had, by a common order in respect of both the co-convicts passed on 07.08.2009, dismissed their respective applications for the grant of suspension of sentence. In paragraph 22 of the said order, we had clearly indicated that we do not find any distinction, at this stage, between the case of the Appellant Vishal Yadav and Vikas Yadav. Apart from the fact that a period of one and a half year has elapsed since the order dated 07.08.2009, nothing new has happened to persuade us to take a different view.
Mr. Saran, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Vishal Yadav, inter alia, submitted that whenever there is incarceration for over five to six years, then the Court ought to consider this as an important circumstance while deciding an application for suspension of sentence. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Angana and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, which also referred to Kashmira Singh''s case in paragraph 16. We find that the decision really pertains to appeals pending before a particular Court for more than five to six years. The present case is an appeal filed in 2008 and has been pending before this Court for less than three years. Mr. Saran also drew our attention to the Supreme Court order in the SLP preferred by the co-convict Vikas Yadav which granted liberty to the co-convict to file a fresh bail application or an application for early hearing. Although the present Appellant did not go to the Supreme Court against the order dated 07.08.2009, we are assuming that the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Yadav would also apply in the case of Vishal Yadav. It is for this reason that we have heard the matter at length but, we are still of the view that this is not a case for suspension of sentence.
The application is dismissed.
