SANJEEV KUMAR,J. - (1.) This application, third in series, has been filed by the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail in case FIR No. 24/2013 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 201 and 120-B RPC read with Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The first two applications, which were filed by the appellant seeking same relief, have already been dismissed by this Court. This application, however, appears to have been filed by the appellant on the ground that during investigation, trial and after conviction, he has remained in detention for more than three years and six months and, therefore, is entitled to be released in terms of Section 497-D of the Code of Criminal procedure.
(2.) The first application seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail registered as IA No. 01/2018 was dismissed by this Court on 08.08.2018. The relief claimed by the appellant was denied on merits. Not satisfied with the order dated 08.08.2018, the appellant filed another application styled as protest petition in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C, seeking virtually the recall of earlier order of this Court dated 08.08.2018 and for suspension of sentence and grant of bail in his favour. This application too was found to be without substance and was dismissed by this Court on 12.03.2019. The instant application, however, has been filed by the appellant on the ground that during the pendency of the criminal appeal, in which the appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 25.04.2018 recorded by the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, the detention of the appellant has exceeded three years and six months and, therefore, he has became entitled to be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties in terms of Section 497-D Cr.P.C. The other ground urged in support of the relief claimed is that appellant is 70 years old and suffering from different life threatening ailments like, diabeties, hypertension, heart disease like unstable angina.
(3.) The bail application has been resisted by the respondents, who have filed their objections and have taken the stand that having regard to the seriousness of the allegations against the appellant and recording of order of conviction by the trial Court, the appellant is not entitled to the concession prayed for in the application. The respondents have also denied that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 497-D of the Code of Criminal procedure. With regard to medical status of the appellant, the respondents have submitted that all necessary medical aid, as is required by the appellant, is being provided to him in the Central Jail along with other inmates. The claim of the appellant that he suffers from life threatening deceases is emphatically denied.;