JUDGMENT : MP No. 01/2016 in Cr. Appeal No. 14/2016 1. Heard. 2. The instant application is for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail. 3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that he be granted the liberty to withdraw the application for bail, in so far as it pertains to appellant No. 1, namely, Mohammad Anwar, with a liberty to renew the prayer at an appropriate time. It is submitted that the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were harmed with rods and sticks only and from the post-mortem report, it is evident that the injuries have been caused on the right head by the sticks and lacerated wound has been inflicted on the forehead. It is further submitted that the appellants are in jail since August, 2009 and there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Chopra, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that all the appellants had actively participated in the commission of offence and, therefore, the application for bail should be rejected. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were carrying rods and sticks and taking into account the injuries, as reflected in the post-mortem report, the same were not fatal in nature. Taking into account the period of detention of the appellants as well as the fact that the appeals of the year 2004 are being heard and in view of the law laid down in the case of “Akhtari Bi v. State of MP, (2001) 4 SCC 355 ”, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on bail, subject to the following conditions:- a. That appellant Nos. 2 and 3 shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial of this Court. b. That the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 shall not leave the State of Jammu and Kashmir without permission of this Court. c. That they shall appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. MP No. 01/2016 in Cr. Appeal No. 16/2016 1. Heard. 2. The instant application is for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant. 3. c. That they shall appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. MP No. 01/2016 in Cr. Appeal No. 16/2016 1. Heard. 2. The instant application is for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was carrying lathi and from the perusal of the post-mortem report, it is evident that injury by lathi has been caused on the right hand of the deceased. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since August, 2009 and there is no possibility of appeal being heard in near future. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Chopra, learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has submitted that the appellant had actively participated in the commission of offence. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, appellant was carrying lathi and taking into account the injury, as reflected in the post-mortem report, the same was fatal in nature. Taking into account the period of detention of the appellant as well as the fact that the appeals for the year 2004 are being heard and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of “Akhtari Bi v. State of MP, (2001) 4 SCC 355 ”, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail, subject to the following conditions:- a. That appellant shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial of this Court. b. That the appellant shall not leave the State of Jammu and Kashmir without permission of this Court. c. That he shall appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.