Judgment : Virender Singh, CJ. I.A No. 4093 of 2014 Through the instant application, the applicant-appellant, Amlesh Kumar Singh @ Amlesh Singh is praying for suspension of substantive sentence during the pendency of the main appeal. He along with his two co-accused, namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Pappu Don @ Sadhu and Binod Kumar Singh stand convicted. Conviction of the applicant along with his co-accused, Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Pappu Don @ Sadhu has been recorded under Section 302/120B I.P.C whereas Binod Kumar Singh, the third co-accused, stands convicted and sentenced only for the offence punishable under Section 302/109 I.P.C. This primarily is the distinguishing feature between the case of the applicant-appellant and Binod Kumar Singh, who has already been granted the concession of bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 28.04.2014 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).697/2014 and heavily relied upon by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant. 2. Admittedly, this is the third bail application. Earlier one rejected on merits by the Court vide order dated 9.02.2012 wherein broadly the case of the prosecution has been depicted; second on 19.02.2013, wherein there is reference to the rejection of the earlier bail application dated 9.02.2012 and the rejection order of the bail application of the applicant-appellant passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 3838 of 2012 dated 2.07.2012. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar vehemently argues that once one of the co-accused, namely, Binod Kumar Singh has been granted the concession of bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order referred to hereinabove, the applicant-appellant also deserves the same concession. He further submits that the applicant-appellant is facing incarceration since February, 2008 and that the instant appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. 4. So far as first limb of argument of Mr. He further submits that the applicant-appellant is facing incarceration since February, 2008 and that the instant appeal is not likely to be heard in near future. 4. So far as first limb of argument of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar is concerned, we are not in agreement with him for a simple reason that the case of the applicant-appellant is entirely distinguishable from his co-accused Binod Kumar Singh, who has already been released on bail by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court inasmuch as co-accused Binod Kumar Singh was charged and convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 I.P.C whereas the present applicant-appellant along with Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Pappu Don @ Sadhu has been charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B I.P.C. Therefore, in our considered view, the learned counsel cannot derive any benefit form the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby his co-accused, Binod Kumar Singh has been ordered to be released on bail. 5. We are otherwise conscious of the fact that the applicant-appellant is languishing in jail for the last more than six years. Fact of the matter is that the the trial in fact has taken long five years in its culmination. Normally it should not take that much of time. Be that as it may, we will take this aspect on administrative side. 6. However, there are many appeals pending in this Court which have gone very old age wise and the appellants are languishing in jail for the last more than 10 years. We have thought of giving priority to all those appeals and have been able to dispose of certain appeals also. Priority to the appeal filed by the present applicant and his co-accused shall also be given in due course depending upon our disposal rate. 7. Keeping that aspect into consideration, incarceration period of six years can also not be considered as one of the factors for enlarging the applicant-appellant on bail at this stage itself. 8. Viewing the present case on all counts, in our considered view applicant-appellant does not deserve concession of suspension of substantive sentence, as prayed for. Resultantly, the application on hand merits dismissal. 9. Ordered accordingly. Application dismissed.