Judgment : C. Shivappa, J. 1. The petitioner herein stands convicted along with six other persons, for offences under Sections 120-B, 148,449, 302 r/w 149 and 427 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, by judgment dated 212. 1994 in S.C.No.l 13 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. He was arrayed as the second accused and now he is seeking for suspension of sentence of imprisonment imposed on him and to enlarge him on bail, pending disposal of C.A.No.224 of 1996 on the file of this Court. 2. The petitioner is seeking bail on the grounds that has been in jail for the last two years and there is no clinching evidence to connect him with the crime and that the co-accused is on bail. 3. The Public Prosecutor resisted the plea of the petitioner contending that the seriousness of the offence and the nature of participation being primary considerations, he is not entitled for bail, that too, after a finding of guilt passed by the Court of Session, and if granted, there is every possibility that he may flee from justice; repeating the offence or jeopardizing his own life, being faced with a grim prospect of possible affirmation of the conviction in the appeal. 4. The point with which we are confronted is whether the person convicted for offence under Section 302, IPC is entitled for bail during the pendency of the appeal? 5. During pre-trial stage bail normally refused on the ground of prima facie case, keeping the nature and seriousness of the offence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of his presence not being secured at the trial and larger interest of the public or State; when, by a judicial verdict after assessing the credibility of the evidence a finding of guilt has been recorded, there is more possibility or likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or jeopardizing his own life in view of the grim prospect of possible conviction. .6. .6. Though there is a saying “bail is a rule, rejection is an exception”, but, after trial-”converse had to be the rule”, and it has to be viewed with the changes in society having regard to the current social problems; where bails are granted in cases which are shocking the conscience of the society and criminals go unpunished, it amounts to thereby encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate making, justice suffers by weakening the system’s credibility. Court must not only keep in view the right of the criminal but also the right of the victim of the crime and the society at large. Not that in all cases of conviction bail should be denied. Wherever the crimes are heinous in nature, shocks the conscience of the society, manner of committing is so brutal and when circumstances stare at the accused, in such cases bail should not be granted. But, it differs from facts and circumstances such as age, ailment, the manner how committed, etc. 7. Society has a right to protect itself against cruel and unusual crimes. Every human being has a right to live and no one should be harmed by senseless violence. The civilised society, then has a right to punish and see that crimes are not perpetrated or repeated at the cost of public places. With overwhelming number of crimes today being committed in every sphere of life, the offender is almost never caught for considerable time and to get evidence is more difficult. Even when convicted, if Courts to take lenient view and enlarge such accused persons the consequence are, (a) it amounts to popularising such atrocities, (b) crimes usually provoke four types of reactions-physical, financial, social and psychological. These shock waves are felt immediately as well as over a long time; sometimes, they are indefinite. The social and psychological aftermaths are not identified so easily, yet they may paralyse the victims more; (c) The fear that victims experience either during or after the crime may also be accompanied by a feeling of utter helplessness; (d) It may make the judicial trial a mockery and (e) distrustness is a common reaction both immediately and long term and people may lose confidence in justice system. 8. 8. Coming to the contentions of the petitioner that he is in jail since two years, and no way connected with the crime, and there are no credible evidence against him, then, the Criminal Rules of Practice contemplates preparation of paper book within a certain period of time. He can resort to that course, after preparation of paper book seek for an earlier disposal of the appeal itself. If bail to be granted on the ground that there will be delay in disposal of the appeal, the accused may indefinitely delay the hearing of the appeal since he is already on bail and it amounts to giving a leverage to flee from justice, that too, when he feels that success in the appeal is bleak. It is the degree with which an accused intended and executed the crime or had and shared the knowledge or common object coupled with participation determines one’s culpability. Therefore, release of co-accused on bail is no ground in all circumstances to grant bail. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner has not made out how he is similarly situated when compared to the co-accused already released. .9. The death of a homicide victim is never dignified. The moment the dependants of the victim are notified of the tragedy they suffer a grief, unique in its own way. The justice system atleast sends a signal that the guilty are not let at large till the case is finally concluded and there is a protection of law for those victims and a signal that no one should take law to one’s own hands. In any crime, one way or the other, public are “secondary victims’ because every crime instances reflect a sense of fear and insecurity among fellow human beings. 10. Therefore, in order to prevent fleeing from justice, threat to victim’s dependents, to ensure a sense of confidence in the prosecution witness, to prevent patronising crimes, to prevent endangering one’s own life and mocking the justice system itself and in order to uphold sanctity to the trial and as a solace to the dependants of the victim, it is not appropriate to enlarge the accused who is convicted for an offence under Section 302, IPC. 11. For reasons aforestated, we see no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.