JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail application by appellant Dalel Singh who has been convicted under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. In addition to his conviction, he has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- under section 325/34 I.P.C. He has also been convicted wider section 323 I P.C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-. Alongwith him Tejsingh accused has also been convicted for the above offence and sentenced identically. 2. Mr. Choudhary learned counsel for the appellant Dalel Singh submitted that the evidence in the case discloses that the accused had no intention to cause the death of deceased Guman Singh, nor he had knowledge that the injuries caused were sufficient to cause the death. It was argued that offence under section 302 I.P.C. is not made out. 3. It was then pointed out that the accused was arrested in December 1977 & since that he is continuously in jail with the result that after addition of the permissible remissions, he has already under gone a sentence of about 6 years. It was pointed out that this Court has repeatedly observed and held that in such cases the accused must be released on bail. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this court in Surta v. State of Rajasthan (1978 RLW, page 266) . 4. Mr. Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor did not contest the factual aspect so far as the period of sentence is concerned, but he submitted that the deceased was beaten mercilessly and both the intention and knowledge of the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt on the record. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In 1978 the bail application was not pressed by the learned counsel. 6. It was expected that the paper book may be prepared and the case would be heard. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and confirmed from enquiries from the office, the Office has not started preparation of paper books of 1978 jail appeals so far. We have been informed that at the moment, the office is preparing the paper book of 1977 appeals. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and confirmed from enquiries from the office, the Office has not started preparation of paper books of 1978 jail appeals so far. We have been informed that at the moment, the office is preparing the paper book of 1977 appeals. In the very nature of things, in view of the above, the possibilities of preparation of paper book may normally take up another 2-3 years cannot be rules out. It is unfortunate that the appeals in which the accused are in jail are not given procedure so far in the preparation of the paper books in comparison to those appeals in which the accused are in jail. 7. Without expressing any opinion about the mertis of the case all that can be said is that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the inordinate, delay in the disposal of the appeal and the fact that the preparation of the paper book has not been commenced, we are of the opinion that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to suspend the sentence of the appellant Dalel Singh. 8. We, therefore, order that the sentence against the appellant Dalel Singh will remain suspended on his furnishing two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each with a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- to appear in this Court as and when called upon on all dates of hearing. The bond should be submitted to the satisfaction of the trial court.Bail Application allowed. *******