JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant application, applicant/appellant-Rinku Kumar seeks suspension of the judgment, conviction/sentence dated 09.01.2012/10.01.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in case File No.27/challan for offence under Section 376/363 RPC and prays for release of applicant on bail, inter alia, on the ground that appeal is pending in this Court since January, 2012. The trial Court has awarded sentence of 07 years for offence under section 376 RPC and 03 years for offence under Section 363. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The applicant has already served 05 years sentence out of 07 years running concurrently with sentence of 03 years. The applicant has undergone almost half of the sentence awarded to him by the Court below. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that in view of the pendency of cases of similar nature, there is no possibility of consideration of the instant appeal for final hearing in near future. It is further submitted that there is a settled principle of law that where the accused has already undergone half of the sentence awarded and is in continuous custody, he is entitled to be released on bail. 3. On the basis of submissions made above, learned counsel seeks suspension of sentence and release of applicant on bail. 4. State has filed objections to the instant application, whereby opposed the bail application stating that the appellant has been found guilty by the trial Court for having kidnapped the prosecutrix out of her lawful guardianship and then committed rape on her in horrendous manner. The case on hand is a fit one where collective interest of the community outweighs the right of the personal liberty of the appellant and granting of bail impede not only the administration of justice but also is going to injure the public interest rather than to serve it, as such the instant application deserves to be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned State Counsel and considered the law on the subject. 6. From the perusal of the file, it also reveals that the appellant-accused has served more than half of the sentence awarded and is still in custody. 7. In case titled ‘Mithu Pasi and anr. Vs. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as learned State Counsel and considered the law on the subject. 6. From the perusal of the file, it also reveals that the appellant-accused has served more than half of the sentence awarded and is still in custody. 7. In case titled ‘Mithu Pasi and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand’ 2016 (8) Scale 654, it is held as under:- “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 389 Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 326 Sentence-Suspension of-Appellant inflicted injury with knife on victim-Already undergone 6 years imprisonment without remission out of ten years awarded-Just and proper to direct suspension of remaining sentence.” 8. In case titled ‘Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics’ 2013 AIR (SCW) 800, it is held as under:- “Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Criminal Procedure-Bail in NDPS case-Delay in Trial-Appellant was languishing in jail for more than 12 years, awaiting, even the commencement of his trial for an offence under NDPS Act and he consistently denied bail, as noted, even by the High Court-Court took serious note of the fact that the maximum punishment for the offence in question is incarceration for 20 years, hence the under trial remained in detention for a period exceeding ½ of the maximum period of imprisonment, in the light of Section 37 of the Act, stated to be against the express pronouncement of it in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Under trial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 731 -Court not only granted the bail deserved by appellant-Thana Singh, but in a view to ensure that in future no under trial under NDPS Act is made to suffer such an anguish and plight, issued several directions.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.’ 2016 (1) SCC (Cri) 663, it is held that ‘under trial prisoners who have completed half of maximum sentence for which they were arrested not be detained in jail’. 10. Appeal is a continuation of trial. Appeal is pending since 2012. There are many such appeals pending, which are prior to this appeal, for arguments. So there is less chance of final consideration of this appeal in near future. 11. 10. Appeal is a continuation of trial. Appeal is pending since 2012. There are many such appeals pending, which are prior to this appeal, for arguments. So there is less chance of final consideration of this appeal in near future. 11. In view of the above, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (a) That the applicant/appellant-Rinku Kumar shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of this Court. (b) The applicant/appellant shall not leave the State of Jammu and Kashmir without permission of this Court. (c) The applicant/appellant shall appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing. Accordingly, the application is allowed.