JUDGMENT This is 9th application (I.A. No. 2000/99) under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence moved by the appellant No. 1, Netram s/o Kishan Lal. Admittedly, six applications for suspension of the sentence moved by this appellant/applicant were rejected on merits. One application for temporary bail was allowed on 20.1.1998. We have heard Shri J.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant at length. We have also dilated his argument on the factual merits of the case, but he has simply confined himself to the point that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pritpal Singhal v. State of Delhi (1999) 1 SCC 169 the appellant/applicant deserves to be bailed out obviously because he has been languishing in jail custody for the last more than eight years. He has vehemently argued that whatever the merits or the gravity of the case, the liberty of the individual cannot be lightly tightened in this way and he cannot be kept behind the bars for such a long time without hearing his grievances by way of appeal. He has submitted that in the present prevailing scenario, keeping in mind the huge pendency of cases, it is very likely that the hearing of the case may further prolong for some time, and in view of this prevailing situation the appellant-applicant deserves to be bailed out. Learned counsel has further drawn our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1987 (II) MPWN Short Note-117 (Jasrath v. State of M.P.) and a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 2147 (Kashmira Singh v. The State of Punjab). We have gone through the citations referred to above, but, with regards, we are of the considered opinion that none of the case law can be taken to be applicable in the instant case. Firstly, taking the Division Bench decision of this Court, cited (supra), we may at the very outset observe that the learned Judges of the Division Bench of this Court had reserved their opinion regarding the merits of the evidence available on record but in the instant case the bail application of this applicant has already been rejected on merits several times. In the case of Kashmira Singh (supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that as long as the Court is not in a position to hear the appeal of the accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court should ordinarily, unless there are cogent reasons for acting otherwise, release the accused on bail. Thus, Hon'ble the Apex Court has also put in an embargo and has, conversely, held that if there are cogent grounds for refusing bail it could be so refused. In the instant case, since this Court, on previous occasions, considered the merits of the case at length and refused bail, hence, it is clear that there are cogent reasons for refusing bail at this juncture also. Now coming to the third case, namely, Pritpal Singhal, cited (supra), it is again very clear that Hon'ble the Apex Court allowed the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant only keeping in mind that he was 70 years old and had been languishing in jail for a long time. In the instant case, the appellant-applicant, Netram is only 45 years of age. Hence, his case is clearly distinguishable on this count. One more very important aspect appearing in this appeal is that on 2-3 occasions, viz., on 29.10.1993, 17.4.1996 and 10.1.1997 this appeal was listed for final hearing but the learned counsel for the appellants himself got it adjourned on one pretext or the other and this aspect also hindered the disposal of the appeal earlier. Certainly, under these circumstances, the appellant-applicant cannot take advantage of his own lethargy in getting the appeal disposed of at an early date. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that this application for suspension of sentence on merits and on the ground of delay in the disposal of the appeal moved by the appellant-applicant Netram deserves to be rejected. Thus, it is hereby rejected.