JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard. 2. This is fourth bail application. At the time when the second application for suspension of sentence was rejected on 6.3.1995, it was specifically observed by the Court that office is to list this appeal for final disposal on 25.4.1995. 3. Irrespective of the aforesaid order, the present appeal could not be disposed of on 25.4.1995. Upon which, third bail application was moved stating therein that since the appeal has not been disposed of upto 25.4.1995 as directed by the Court, which itself is a fresh ground to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. It is urged before me that the accused-applicant is not contributing anything in delaying the decision of the appeal on merits. 4. Looking into all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has directed the office to list the instant appeal for final disposal on merits on 10.1.1996 while disposing of third bail application. Due to paucity of time, the present appeal could not be heard and disposed of even on 10.1.1996. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant Mr. Pradeep Shah vehemently urged before me that right to speedy trial flowing from Art. 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses all the stages of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. According to Mr. Shah, irrespective of the dates fixed by the Court twice, the present appeal could not be heard due to paucity of time. According to Mr. Shah, the accused-applicant is not contributing anything in delaying the decision of the appeal on merits. 6. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant is refuted by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. D.R. Bohra and he prays that a further specific date may be given for disposal of the appeal on merits. I declined to grant further time, especially when, specific dates were given by the Court twice in the past while disposing of second and third bail applications, yet the appeal could not be decided on merits due to paucity of time. 7. The accused-applicant is in jail w.e.f. 13.10.1992 which fact is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Thus, the accused-applicant has already suffered imprisonment for more than 31/2 years and he is not contributing anything in delaying the decision of the appeal on merits. 8. 7. The accused-applicant is in jail w.e.f. 13.10.1992 which fact is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Thus, the accused-applicant has already suffered imprisonment for more than 31/2 years and he is not contributing anything in delaying the decision of the appeal on merits. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to suspend the sentence of the accused-applicant provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer for his appearance in this Court on 12.4.1996 and as and when called upon to do so.Application Allowed. *******