JUDGMENT Mr. S.S. Saron, J.: - Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Shri Rai Sahab, Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Faridabad, mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant Girraj. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant Girraj, during the pendency of the appeal. 4. The case has been registered on the complaint of Shanticomplainant. Satish (PW13), who is an eyewitness in the case deposed that on 11.12.2006 he had gone to Palwal on the asking of Mahender (deceased). At Palwal, Girraj (applicant/appellant) a relative of Mahender (deceased) met them. Mahender purchased a bottle of country made liquor. They all consumed liquor at the house of Rati Ram, which had been taken on rent by Girraj (applicant/appellant). Mahender (deceased) bought one more bottle of liquor. Satish (PW13) refused to consume any further. However, Girraj (applicant/appellant) and Mahender (deceased) again started taking liquor. While they were drinking, Girraj and Mahender had a quarrel amongst themselves. Satish (PW13) tried to intervene but they did not stop. Thereafter, Girraj (applicant/appellant) pushed Mahender out of his room. Satish had then woken up his neighbour Luxman. Then Satish had gone to call Rati Ram but he did not find him at that time and he returned. In the presence of Satish (PW13), Girraj (applicant/appellant) gave blow with a small gas cylinder on the head of Mahender. Mahender died at the spot instantaneously and Girraj (applicant/appellant) ran away from spot along with the gas cylinder. 5. The prosecution case is that there was a sudden quarrel between Girraj (applicant/appellant) and Mahender (deceased) on account of which, Girraj (applicant/appellant) gave a blow with a gas cylinder on the head of Mahender. 6. According to learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, the same would not make out an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as there has been no pre-meditation before the commission of crime and neither has applicant/appellant acted in a cruel manner nor repeated the blow. Besides it is submitted that applicant/appellant has undergone more than 5 years of imprisonment. 7. Besides it is submitted that applicant/appellant has undergone more than 5 years of imprisonment. 7. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that applicant/appellant inflicted a blow with a small gas cylinder on the head of the deceased Mahender, which clearly shows his intention to commit the murder. 8. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the parties would require consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. It is to be considered whether the role of applicant/appellant is one which would make out a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or for a lesser offence. 9. In terms of the affidavit of Shri Rai Sahab, Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Faridabad, the applicant/appellant has undergone 5 years, 2 months and 13 days of imprisonment as on 27.2.2012. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant Girraj, during the pendency of the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant Girraj, during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. ---------0.B.S.0------------