JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant application, applicants/appellants-Babu Ram & Uttam Kumar seek suspension of conviction/sentence dated 15.02.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur in case FIR No.01/2009 of Police Station Basantgarh for offence under Section 376, 341, 382, 109 RPC and pray for release of applicants on bail, inter alia, on the ground that appeal is pending in this Court since February, 2013. The trial Court has awarded sentence of 7 years under Section 376 RPC and one month under Section 341 RPC to the applicants/accused. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The applicants were initially arrested on 25.02.2009 and were enlarged on bail on 28.05.2009. They were again arrested on 15.02.2013 and since then they are languishing in jail. Thus, they have undergone more than half of the sentence awarded to them. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants 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 total sentence awarded, 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 applicants on bail. 4. Per contra, bail application is opposed by learned Addl. Advocate General stating that the applicants have been convicted by the learned trial Court for commission of offences which are of very serious and heinous in nature. In view of the alarming rate of these kind of offences in the society, the applicants do not deserve any kind of leniency in consideration of their bail application as such their bail application is required to be dismissed. It is submitted that there is also reasonable apprehension that in case the concession of bail is extended to the applicants/appellants at this stage, they would abuse the liberty to subvert justice thereby thwarting the course of justice, as such, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that in view of gravity of accusation, nature of evidence available and severity of punishment & conviction, the instant application is required to be rejected outrightly. 5. It is further submitted that in view of gravity of accusation, nature of evidence available and severity of punishment & conviction, the instant application is required to be rejected outrightly. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/appellants as well as learned State Counsel and considered the law on the subject. 6. Section 497-D of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- “497-D. Maximum period for which an under trial prisoner can be detained.-Where a person has during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code or an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under the law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties: Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded in the writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of personal bond with or without sureties: Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than maximum period of imprisonment provided for said offence under the law. Explanation:- In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.” 7. Bare perusal of Section 497-D Cr.P.C., makes it clear that where a person has during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code or an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under the law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties. 8. In present case, the applicants have undergone more than half of the sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court. 9. In case titled ‘Mithu Pasi and anr. Vs. 8. In present case, the applicants have undergone more than half of the sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court. 9. 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.” 10. 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 undertrial 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.” 11. 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 prescribed for offence for which they were arrested not be detained in jail’. 12. Appeal is a continuation of trial. Appeal is pending since February, 2013. 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. 13. 12. Appeal is a continuation of trial. Appeal is pending since February, 2013. 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. 13. In view of the above, I am inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by trial court and enlarge the applicants/appellants on bail, subject to the following conditions:- a. That the applicants/appellants- Babu Ram & Uttam Kumar, shall furnish personal bond in the amount of Rs.One lac each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of this Court. b. The applicants/appellants shall not leave the State of Jammu and Kashmir without permission of this Court. c. The applicants/appellants shall appear before this Court on each and every date of hearing. d. Any violation of conditions shall amounts to cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.