ORDER : I.A. No. 1471 of 2017 The appellants have faced the trial in S.T. No. 187 of 2011, whereby the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda by judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2015 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2015 held them guilty for the offence under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo R.I for seven years each and further three years of R.I and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I for three months and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased and they are in custody for more than five and half years. 3. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.P.P. 5. At present, the criminal appeals of the year 2003-04 are being heard and the present appeal is not likely to be taken up for final adjudication in near future. 6. A Division Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, reported in (2000) 1 Chan. LR. 74, had come up for consideration in the case of Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 387 on the question of release of convict on bail during the pendency of appeal on the ground of Court’s inability to take up criminal appeals for final hearing. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Dharam Pal (supra) had passed certain orders, in this regard. Relevant portion from paragraph 10 of which is extracted hereinbelow:- “10. ................... We, therefore, direct that life convicts, who have undergone at least five years of imprisonment of which at least three years should be after conviction, should be released on bail pending the hearing of their appeals should they make an application for this purpose. We are also of the opinion that the same principles ought to apply to those convicted by the courts martial and such prisoners should also be entitled to release after seeking a suspension of their sentences. We are also of the opinion that the same principles ought to apply to those convicted by the courts martial and such prisoners should also be entitled to release after seeking a suspension of their sentences. We further direct that the period of five years would be reduced to four for females and minors with at least two years imprisonment after conviction. We, however, clarify that these directions shall not be applicable in cases where the very grant of bail is forbidden by law.” 7. In case of Dharam Pal (supra), the High Court of Punjab & Haryana had held, as can be easily seen, that the Court decided that such life convicts, who had undergone at least 5 years of imprisonment of which at least 3 years, after conviction, should be released on bail pending the hearing of their appeals, if they made an application for the said purpose. In case of female and minors, the Punjab & Haryana High Court fixed 4 years in place of 5 years and 2 years imprisonment after conviction instead of conviction of 3 years. The said direction, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held, shall not to apply in cases, where very grant of bail is forbidden by law. 8. In another case, when an application for release on bail was refused by a Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Supreme Court, on an appeal, had an occasion to consider the said direction issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Supreme Court, in case of Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh (supra), held that the said directions, issued by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, were only in the nature of guidelines and it should not be understood to have laid down any invariable rule to be observed with mathematical precision. The Supreme Court observed, in paragraph 12 in the case of Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh (supra), that the guidelines laid by Punjab & Haryana High Court, in case of Dharam Pal (supra), should be kept in mind by the Courts dealing with applications for grant of bail in a pending appeal, though, it does not lay down any hard-and-fast rule of universal application. Paragraph 12 of the said decision, in case of Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh (supra), reads thus:- “12. Paragraph 12 of the said decision, in case of Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh (supra), reads thus:- “12. We, therefore, hold that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Dharam Pal case laid down guidelines which ought to be kept in mind by the courts dealing with applications for grant of bail in a pending appeal. It does not lay down any hard-and-fast rule of universal application. As we have observed earlier, it would be futile to lay down any straitjacket formula in such matters.” 9. The issue of long pendency of criminal appeals for final hearing arising out of capital charges as a factor for considering suspension of sentence and release of the appellants on bail, on that ground, had come up for consideration in the case of Anurag Baitha (supra) before a Full Bench of this Court in a situation where till close of the year 1983, murder appeals, preferred in the year 1972, and well beyond a decade were pending disposal for the fact that the Court had remained crippled by the absence of full nearly one-third of its sanctioned strength. The anxiety of the Full Bench had been candidly expressed in paragraph no. 4 in the case of Anurag Baitha (supra), which reads as follows:- “4. ........... But for the fact that the Court has remained crippled by the absence of full one-third of its sanctioned strength and as many as thirteen vacancies on this Bench have existed, there would have been no question of any delays in such hearings. This, however, was not to be. Yet hopefully the identical position of wiping out all delays at the Patna Bench itself would be reached well within the next year. However, there is no gainsaying the fact that as of today 1983 murder appeals only can be listed (barring the specially ordered cases) and heard in the ordinary course and there thus remains a yawning gap of three years or more betwixt the filing of an appeal and its final disposal. So long as this remains and if it unfortunately recurs, the significant issues raised herein have to be considered and frontally faced.” 10. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to admit the appellants on bail and suspend the sentence awarded to the appellants and appellants, namely, Bibi Rubeda @ Rubeda Khatoon and Md. So long as this remains and if it unfortunately recurs, the significant issues raised herein have to be considered and frontally faced.” 10. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to admit the appellants on bail and suspend the sentence awarded to the appellants and appellants, namely, Bibi Rubeda @ Rubeda Khatoon and Md. Mojeem Ansari are directed to be released on bail, during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of District & Additional Session Judge-II, Godda in connection with S.T. No. 187 of 2011. 11. I.A. No. 1471 of 2017 stands allowed.