B.K.RATHI, J. - (1.) THE appellant, Vijay Singh has made a request for bail in appeal filed against his conviction for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Pronibition Act in S.T No. 1294 of 1996 decided on 05.03.1998 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh.
(2.) 1 have heard Sri G.R Dixit, learned Counsel for the appellant, Vijay Singh and the learned A. G. A. It is contended that the appellant is in jail since April, 1996 i.e., since last four years. Learned Counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thakhat Singh v. State of U.R, 1999 (10) JT 438; 2000(1) JIC 730 (SC). In this case, the appeal against the conviction for offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was pending before High Court. The appellants applied for bail and it was rejected indicating that the appellants can renew their prayer for bail after once year. After one year second bail application was moved which was also rejected. Therefore, the convicts filed ap­peal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was observed by the Apex Court that the appellants were already in jail for over three years and three months. That there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. The bail was therefore, granted by the Apex Court. It is contended that in the present case the appellant, Vijay Singh is in jail over four years and there is no possibility of the appeal being heard early, therefore he is entitled to bail.
(3.) THE question therefore, for con­sideration is whether the above decision of the Apex Court is intended for universal application and whether it should be con­sidered that the Apex Court has laid down that all the accused who are in jail for more than three year and three months should be enlarged on bail divorced from the facts. I, therefore, consider whether any such law has been declared by the Apex Court by the aforesaid judgment.;