B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Desai waives service of Rule for respondent-Slate of Gujarat.
2. The applicant-accused has prayed for regular bail in this application till final disposal of his above appeal on the ground that he is in Jail since last 4 years and his appeal is of only 2002 and there are no chances of early hearing of his appeal, therefore, considering the fact that the applicant-accused is convicted on purely circumstantial evidence, he should be enlarged on bail till the final disposal of this appeal. It is also, submitted by learned Counsel Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the applicant-accused that during this period of 4 years he has been released once on furlough, once on parole and thrice on temporary bail and that every time he surrendered in time and no untoward incident has taken place and that he himself abide by the terms and conditions of the temporary bail. Therefore, he submitted that the applicant-accused be now released on regular bail on any suitable terms and conditions as think fit by this Hon'ble Court.
3. In support of his submission that the applicant-accused is in jail for more than 4 years and that there are less chances of his appeal being heard early, and therefore, accused be released on regular bail, Mr. Singh relied upon the Apex Court judgment in case of Shah Kantilal Bheemchand v. State of Gujarat, reported in JT 2001 (10) SC 26.
4. Jail record produced by learned A.P.P. Mr. Desai shows that he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court on 19-11-2001 for the serious offence like murder under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the major offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Thus, from the date of the conviction till today he has remained in Jail for a period of just more than 1 year and in all for a period of 3 years and not 4 years as claimed by the learned Counsel for the applicant-accused.
5. It is true that after his conviction on 19-11-2001, he has been enlarged on temporary bail on 4 different occasions and once on furlough and that he surrendered in time, but that itself would be hardly any ground for granting him regular bail.
6. Furlough is a matter of right and at the interval of 2 years, the accused is entitled for furlough, therefore, he was released on furlough.
7. Consideration for grant of temporary bail is totally different. Considering the facts of the case the applicant-accused was released on temporary bail in the past. First time, he was released on the ground of marriage of his sister. Second time, on the ground of sickness of his mother. Third and fourth times, he was released on the ground of engagement of his sister. Thus, totally on humanitarian grounds the applicant-accused was released on temporary bail, but that can never be used for getting regular bail.
8. This brings us to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shah Kantilal (supra). We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case before the Hon'ble Court, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat had straightaway conceded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there was no such overt act as ascribed to the accused. Considering this and the fact that the accused was in jail for a considerable long time and that there was hardly any chance of his appeal being heard early, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on peculiar facts of that case granted regular bail. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no application to the facts of the present case.
9. Before parting, we must state that prayer for regular bail of the applicant-accused was considered and rejected on merits by another Division Bench of this Court (Coram : N. G. Nandi & D. P. Buch, JJ.) on 9-10-2002 and after a period of one year this present application is filed. Lapse of one year after rejection of previous application is no ground to grant regular bail. When the previous Bench has not thought it fit to grant bail after considering the merits, then there is no question of considering the case on merits by this Court in this application. It is true that the present case may be based on circumstantial evidence, but it is said that witnesses may lie, but not the circumstances.
10. Before parting, we must also state that this type of applications for regular bail consume valuable time of the Court and because of this, we are not in a position to take up old criminal appeal for final disposal, which are placed on the Board. If this type of frivolous applications are not filed, then the old appeals of the accused can be taken up and decided early. We may also state that since quite some time the Hon'ble Chief Justice has provided almost three Benches taking up criminal appeals. Thus, all possible steps are taken for early disposal of appeals, but this type of frivolous applications are coming in the way of the Courts in disposing of the old appeals early.
11. With these observations, this application is rejected. Rule is discharged.