VIRENDER SINGH, J. - (1.) Through the instant application, appellant -applicant (Vishwanath Singh) is praying for suspension of sentence. His prayer for the said relief already stands declined vide order dated 13th July, 2011, on which date along with appellant -applicant five other co -convicts had also knocked at the door of the Court for suspension of sentence. Vide the said order, convict - Bajrangi Singh was granted the concession of suspension of sentence, primarily on the ground of old age whereas Baijnath Singh also got the same relief on account of the fact that he was not named by the prosecution witnesses during trial. The said relief qua the appellant and other co -accused, namely, Dilip Singh, Dulal Singh and Tripurari Singh was declined.
(2.) Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for applicant ­ appellant states that subsequently Dilip Singh, Dulal Singh and Tripurari Singh have been granted the concession of bail and that the case of applicant -appellant is at par with these three co -convicts. He further stated that the bail application of Ranjit Singh, who is also languishing in jail, was subsequently rejected by this Court finding it to be distinguishable on facts from that of Dulal Singh. Mr.Tiwari thus states that not only the case of applicant -appellant is factually at par with the aforesaid co -convicts who have been granted concession of suspension of sentence after earlier facing rejection at one stage and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future on account of heavy pendency in this Court of other appeals filed earlier to the present appeal, the applicant - appellant also deserves the same concession.
(3.) What is disturbing to the Court is that no one is representing the State to oppose the prayer made by Mr.Tiwari. What we are usually noticing is that either the counsel representing the State does not appear to assist the Court or when appears, he is unprepared. We request the learned Advocate General to take a serious note of it.;