N. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) - This Criminal appeal has been laid before me by the Honble the Chief Justice, under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for consideration of the application (I. A. No. 755/2000) made by the appellants for suspension of sentence as the two Honble Judges (R. D. Vyas and Shambhoo Singh, JJ) comprising the Division Bench hearing the appeal, were equally divided in opinion as to whether or not the prayer for suspension of Jail sentences be granted. ( 2 ) HONBLE R. D. Vyas, J. was of the View that no prima facie case to release the accused on bail was made out. However, Honble Shambhoo Singh, ] was of the opinion that the application deserves to be allowed and the appellants be released on their each furnishing personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ( 3 ) ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, namely; Arjun, Anil Mukesh and Virendra Singh have been convicted by the Turd Addi. Sessions Judge, Ratlam, under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine Rs. 1,000/-, vide judgment dated 7-1-2000, in S. T. No. 109/99. The impugned conviction is based mainly on circumstantial evidence consisting of two components: One, last seen; and, two, recovery of blood stained weapons in the wake of disclosure allegedly made by the appellants while in police custody. It may, however, be clarified that the origin and group of the blood on the seized weapons could not be ascertained. Similarly, the evidence regarding last seen is available against appellant No. 1 Arjun and No. 2 Anil, not against No. 3 Virendra Singh. The former two appellants are aged about 18 years, while the appellant No. 3 is of 21 years age. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. N. S. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. G. Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent - State. ( 5 ) SHRI Purohit has Vehemently urged that having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced against the appellants and their age, they are entitled to be released on bail and the substantive sentence of imprisonment be suspended. Mr. Desai has, however, opposed the prayer. G. Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent - State. ( 5 ) SHRI Purohit has Vehemently urged that having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced against the appellants and their age, they are entitled to be released on bail and the substantive sentence of imprisonment be suspended. Mr. Desai has, however, opposed the prayer. ( 6 ) IN My Own Boswelltt, Chapter to the Supreme Court at page 194, the former Chief Justice of India documents: Mondays, in these days, used to be admission days. No work other than admissions or miscellaneous cases was handled. A curious practice was to admit a case to hearing if any Judge wanted it. We do not differ from our colleague at that stage. (emphasis supplied) ( 7 ) SURELY the learned Author was not referring to any decision or the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter. He was referring to a practice observed in the Supreme Court in the matter of admission of petitions. ( 8 ) I need not to enter into the merits or demerits of the appeal at this stage. Suffice to say that the circumstances of the case already documented above, are not such which may dissuade the Court from granting the interim prayer for suspension of sentence. ( 9 ) HONBLE the Supreme Court in Bhagwans case has observed: Where the High Court was not inclined to hear the appeal expeditiously, the sentence passed on appellants can be suspended on some stringent conditions. The Court, therefore, suspended the sentence and directed the appellants to be released on bail. ( 10 ) THE pendency is very large at the Bench. There is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in near future. Under the circumstances, I respectfully agree with the opinion of Honble Singh, J. and regretfully disagree with the opinion expressed by Hontble Vyas, J. ( 11 ) THE matter shall now be placed before the Division Bench for further orders in the matter. Order accordingly. .