RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. K. T. Dave, learned Additional Public prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. ( 2 ) PRESENT application is filed on 1-4-2006, though the memo is signed on 24-3-2006. An urgent note was filed on 3-4-2006. These dates are mentioned to show how the matter is conducted. Earlier, this very applicant (original-accused No. 3) had moved this Court by Misc. Criminal Application No. 6586 of 2004. That Misc. Criminal Application was filed on 16-7-2004. The record goes to show that this application was filed along with Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2004. The said Misc. Criminal application was disposed of by this Court (Coram : C. K. Buch, J.) by order dated 16-8-2004. For the ready reference, the order is reproduced in toto :"heard Mr. Mankad, learned Counsel on behalf of Mr. P. H. Buch for the applicants-accused and Mr. H. M. Prachchhak, learned A. P. P. , on behalf of the opponent-State. 2. Considering the totality of facts emerging from record, the bail plea of the applicants-accused is not accepted at this stage. It is, however, clarified that if the main Criminal Appeal is not heard within a reasonable period of one year from today, it will be open for the applicants-accused to prefer the bail application afresh. If such application is made, the same shall be heard and decided on its own merits in accordance with law. This application is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. " ( 3 ) MR. Agrawal, the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that it is on account of expiry of the aforesaid period of one year , mentioned in the aforesaid order that the present application is filed for grant of bail. The relief prayed for is as under :"8. (B) Suspend the execution of sentence and enlarge the petitioner-original accused No. 3 on bail during the pendency, final hearing and disposal of his Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2004 preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions judge, Fast Track No. 3, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2003 dated 29-5-2004. " ( 4 ) MR. Agrawal, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon a decision of this Court (Coram : M. D. Shah, J.) in Misc. " ( 4 ) MR. Agrawal, the learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon a decision of this Court (Coram : M. D. Shah, J.) in Misc. Criminal Application No. 19 of 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2006 dated 4-1-2006. The learned advocate submitted that his case is on a better footing then the one in the said misc. Criminal Application No. 19 of 2006. In this regard, he relied upon paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the said order which read as under :"3. The appeal of the present appellants-accused is admitted. The present appellants-accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Secs. 489 (b)and (c) of Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 120b of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs. 2500/- in default six months rigorous imprisonment. The present applicants are also awarded sentence to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs. 2500/- in default six months rigorous imprisonment for the offences punishable under secs. 489 (b) and (c) of Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 120b of Indian Penal Code. ""4. Taking into consideration the sentence awarded by the learned Additional sessions Judge and as the appeal is admitted, the application of the appellants is hereby required to be allowed. The present appellant-accused are ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of their personal bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand only) each with like amount of surety before the learned lower court subject to payment of fine. Appellant-accused shall not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. D. S. permitted. " ( 5 ) MR. Agrawal, the learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted that the present applicant original accused No. 3 has also paid fine on 31-5-2004. Xerox copy of the receipt is produced at Annexure-B, page No. 15 of this application. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate next relied upon an order passed by this Court (Coram : Akil Kureshi, J.) in Misc. Criminal Application No. 6755 of 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 1170 of 2004 dated 5-4-2006. The learned Advocate submitted that this order is passed in the matter of co-accused. Learned Advocate mr. Agrawal placed reliance on the order, making a special reference to Paragraph no. Criminal Application No. 6755 of 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 1170 of 2004 dated 5-4-2006. The learned Advocate submitted that this order is passed in the matter of co-accused. Learned Advocate mr. Agrawal placed reliance on the order, making a special reference to Paragraph no. 3, which reads as under :"3. Considering all these aspects of the matter, and that there is no immediate possibility of taking up appeal for final hearing, and considering that the offence itself is bailable, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail upon his executing bond of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount before the trial Court. This Misc. Criminal Application is disposed of. Rule made absolute. Direct Service is permitted. " ( 7 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Agrawal submitted that it is the law laid down by the Hon ble the Apex Court that, when the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence, the High Court should not refuse to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal . In this regard, he relied upon a decision of the Hon ble the Apex Court in the matter of Kamal v. State of Haryana, reported in 2006 (1) SCC (Cri.) 757. The order reads as under :"1. Leave granted. 2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 304-B i. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that bail be granted to the appellant on such conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. " ( 8 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Agrawal next relied upon a decision of the Hon ble the Apex Court, in support of his submission that, when the sentence of a convict is of limited duration, prayer to suspend the sentence should be considered liberally unless there is any statutory restriction , in the matter of Bhagwan Rama shinde Gosai and Ors. Agrawal next relied upon a decision of the Hon ble the Apex Court, in support of his submission that, when the sentence of a convict is of limited duration, prayer to suspend the sentence should be considered liberally unless there is any statutory restriction , in the matter of Bhagwan Rama shinde Gosai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 (4) SCC 421 . He relied upon observations made by the Hon ble the Apex Court in Paragraph no. 3 which reads as under :"3. When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended, every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise, the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate Court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate Court must bestow special concern in the matters of suspending the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. Of course, appellate Courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 9 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Agrawal next relied upon a decision of the Hon ble the Apex Court in the matter of Kiran Kumar v. State of M. P. , reported in 2001 (9) SCC 211 . The learned Advocate submitted that according to him, the hon ble the Apex Court has laid down a proposition of law to the effect that,"normal rule is that when the appeal of a person convicted and sentenced is pending, the sentence passed on him should be suspended unless any exceptional reason existing therein requires the denial of the same". The learned Advocate made special reference to Paragraph No. 3 of the said judgment which reads as under :"3. The learned Advocate made special reference to Paragraph No. 3 of the said judgment which reads as under :"3. This Court has held in Bhagwan Ram Shinde v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (4) SCC 421 : that when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short-term imprisonment the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception and be put forward for such rejection. In such case also, every endeavour should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purposes, infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned. It does not mean that the appellate Court should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be danger to the society or any other similar difficulties. " ( 10 ) IN the considered opinion of this Court, none of the submissions of the learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal can be accepted because the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate have no application to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, the applicant original accused No. 3 was convicted under Sec. 489c, i. e. "possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. " The applicant original accused No. 3 was convicted by judgment and order dated 29-5-2004 in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2003 by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Valsad. The applicant preferred an appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal no. 1179 of 2004, which is admitted and pending as mentioned earlier. Along with Criminal Appeal, the applicant original-accused No. 3 had filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 6586 of 2004, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 16-8-2004. The applicant felt contended and waited for the reasons best known to the applicant without doing anything in the matter. The reason is obvious. This Court while dismissing Misc. Criminal Application No. 6586 of 2004 had observed that, "it is, however, clarified that if the main Criminal appeal is not heard within a reasonable period of one year from today, it will be open for the applicants-accused to prefer the bail application afresh. The reason is obvious. This Court while dismissing Misc. Criminal Application No. 6586 of 2004 had observed that, "it is, however, clarified that if the main Criminal appeal is not heard within a reasonable period of one year from today, it will be open for the applicants-accused to prefer the bail application afresh. The applicant took it for granted that on expiry of one year from the date of the order, i. e. 16-8-2004, he will be getting the bail. He, therefore, left the matter (Criminal Appeal) to the Registry of the High Court and did not make any attempt to get the matter heard. In this regard, when a pointed query is put to the learned Advocate Mr. Agrawal as to what action did applicant took to get his appeal heard, the learned advocate submitted that the order did not direct/ask the appellant-applicant original-accused No. 3 to make any attempt to get the appeal heard. This comes to that he was waiting for the appeal to come on board and the Court to compel the learned Advocate to argue the matter. ( 11 ) THE fact is that after getting the aforesaid observation from this Court in order dated 16-8-2004, the appellant-applicant original accused No. 3 could not have and should not have gone to slumber on assumption that on expiry of one year, a right will stand accrued in his favour to get bail without doing anything in the matter. Such a misconception on the part of appellant-applicant original accused No. 3 is required to be condemned so that such misconception is not conceived by other similarly situated persons. When the Court makes an observation in the order, the person concerned must act in furtherance of that order. It is painful that despite the fact that the Court made aforesaid favourable observation in favour of the appellant-applicant original-accused No. 3, the appellant instead of becoming active, became non-active and did not make any attempt to get his appeal heard. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the object/purpose of the Court making the aforesaid favourable observation was to make the appellant-applicant-original accused No. 3 non-active. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the object/purpose of the Court making the aforesaid favourable observation was to make the appellant-applicant-original accused No. 3 non-active. Even the hon ble the Apex Court has held that,"if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases". (Emphasis supplied)Present is the case wherein the appellant-applicant original-accused No. 3 rest contended by obtaining favourable observation. The misconception on the part of the applicant is not only unwarranted, but to an extent ill-motivated, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a case to which the aforesaid decisions of the Hon ble the Apex Court are applicable. It is well-known saying that, "law helps those who help themselves". Present is the case where the applicant original-accused No. 3 did not help himself by making any motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal. If that is so, the aforesaid observations of this Court do not come forward to help the applicant original-accused No. 3. ( 12 ) IN the result, this Misc. Criminal Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Application dismissed.