JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentences of imprisonment of the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2-Mohinder Singh @ Baba @ Natha Singh and Swaran Singh during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Karnal mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant No. 2-Swaran Singh. The same is taken on record. Similar affidavit dated 23.02.2013 in respect of applicant/appellant No. 1-Mohinder Singh @ Baba @ Natha Singh was filed on the last date of hearing and was taken on record. 2. Both the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC and Section 307 read with Section 120-B IPC. In respect offence under Section 120-B IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; besides, pay a fine of ` 5000/- each and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each. For the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120-B IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years; besides, pay a fine of ` 5000/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years each. They have also been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3(a) read with Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120-B IPC. They were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years; besides, pay a fine of ` 5000/- each and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three years. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of complainant-Rajesh Insan (applicant in Crl. Misc. No. A-864-MA of 2012) made before SI/SHO Jagpal Singh, Police Station Butana. It is alleged by the complainant that on 02.02.2008, Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim after attending the Court proceedings at Ambala Cantt. was proceeding to U.P. via Karnal in a cavalcade of vehicles being escorted by the two 'gypsy' vehicles of the Haryana Police. Misc. No. A-864-MA of 2012) made before SI/SHO Jagpal Singh, Police Station Butana. It is alleged by the complainant that on 02.02.2008, Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim after attending the Court proceedings at Ambala Cantt. was proceeding to U.P. via Karnal in a cavalcade of vehicles being escorted by the two 'gypsy' vehicles of the Haryana Police. When the fleet reached in the area of village Manak Majra on the G.T. road, which is within the area of Police Station Butana then at that time, a truck bearing No. HR-56-1887 was going ahead and while overtaking the truck an explosion occurred from the truck on account of which some vehicles of the cavalcade of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim were damaged. This caused injuries to the complainant-Rajesh Insan and also to Deepan and Dayal. After the explosion, the persons accompanying the cavalcade saw that the explosion had occurred in the aforementioned truck. The persons accompanying the cavalcade chased the truck and got it stopped after some distance. By that time the complainant-Rajesh Insan and Deepan also reached there. It came to the notice of the complainant that the truck in question was being driven by Mohinder Singh @ Baba @ Natha Singh (applicant/appellant No. 1) and Swaran Singh (applicant/appellant No. 2) was sitting beside him. The explosion had been caused by them through a bomb installed in the spare wheel of the truck. The explosive was exploded by the said accused namely Mohinder Singh @ Baba @ Natha Singh and Swaran Singh (applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2) through a remote control devise when the cavalcade of Baba was overtaking the truck. It was with the intention to kill Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim. After explosion, Baba left the scene of crime. With the above facts, he prayed that necessary action be taken. 4. The learned trial Court after detailed consideration of the evidence and material on record has found the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 guilty for the offences under Sections 120-B and 307 read with Section 120-B IPC as also Section 3(a) read with Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120-B IPC. They have been sentences to imprisonment for varying terms, the maximum being ten years, which is to run concurrently with the other sentences of imprisonment. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 has contended that eight person were involved in the case. They have been sentences to imprisonment for varying terms, the maximum being ten years, which is to run concurrently with the other sentences of imprisonment. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 has contended that eight person were involved in the case. Parveen (respondent No. 9 in Crl. Misc. No. A-864-MA of 2012) was acquitted; besides, Jaswant Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Gurvinder Singh alias Gonna and Dharminder Singh alias Pinda (appellants No. 3 to 6) were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years. Their sentences of imprisonment have been suspended by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 56738 of 2012 in the present appeal. It is submitted that the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 have undergone more than five years of imprisonment out of the sentence often years of imprisonment and in case they undergo their entire period of imprisonment, the purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. It is also submitted that inadmissible evidence has been taken into account for convicting the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 and their conviction is not liable to be sustained. 6. In response, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer for suspension of sentences of imprisonment of the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2. It is submitted that both the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 have undergone inadequate sentences of imprisonment after their conviction; besides, the case against them is fully established on the basis of material and evidence on record. Moreover, the act of the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 was serious as it was intended to cause disturbance of peace and communal harmony in the society. Therefore, their sentences of imprisonment are not liable to be suspended. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. Learned State counsel has filed an affidavit dated 10.03.2013 of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Karnal, mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant No. 2-Swaran Singh. Besides, an affidavit dated 23.02.2013 of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Karnal, mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant No. 1-Mohinder Singh @ Baba @ Natha Singh had been earlier filed. In terms of the said affidavits, the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 have undergone five years of imprisonment out of the sentence of imprisonment often years. They are not involved in any other case. In terms of the said affidavits, the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 have undergone five years of imprisonment out of the sentence of imprisonment often years. They are not involved in any other case. The allegations against them are though serious, however, the case does involve arguable points which would require consideration at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Besides, they have admittedly undergone imprisonment of five years out of the sentence of ten years that has been imposed. After conviction both the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 have undergone sentence of imprisonment which is quite short. However, they were in custody through out the trial and the delay has occurred not on their part but on account of the fact that one of the co-accused namely Bakshish Singh (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. S-2815-SB of 2012) had been absconding. It is only after his surrender that a de novo trial was conducted. Therefore, for the same the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 cannot be said to be at fault. A Full Bench of this Court in Dalip Singh alias Deepa v. State of Punjab, ILR 2010 (1) P & H 845 has held that when a convict has undergone a substantial part of his sentence and is not released the very purpose of his filing the appeal may be defeated as he would have undergone most of the substantive sentence that has been imposed. After considering various aspects, it was held that in case of delay by the prosecution, which is oppressive or unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, appropriate remedial orders would be required to be passed and these may include in a given fact situation the grant of bail. After considering various aspects, it was held that in case of delay by the prosecution, which is oppressive or unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, appropriate remedial orders would be required to be passed and these may include in a given fact situation the grant of bail. In respect of life convicts the normal rule that has been followed is that after imprisonment for five years where the applicant/appellant has undergone at least three years imprisonment post conviction, his sentence of imprisonment is normally suspended; besides, the rule of three years of imprisonment after conviction, it has been held in Dalip Singh's case (supra) can be waived if it is shown that the delay in the trial has occurred not on the part of the applicants seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment, in the present case as already noticed, the delay in the trial is not attributed to the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 but it may be attributed to Bakshish Singh (appellant in Crl. Appeal No. S-2815-SB of 2012). The present appeal is of the year 2012 and is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. In the normal course, this appeal would have been listed before a Single Bench, However, it is listed before Division Bench as Crl. Misc. No. A-864-MA of 2012 which is primarily against acquittal of Parveen (respondent No. 9 therein) has been ordered to be listed with the present case. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 as also the fact that the appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future, it would be just and expedient to suspend the sentences of their imprisonment but at the same time ask them to execute their own' bonds and also furnish a surety of a respectable person of their area who along with the respective applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 shall undertake that while on bail they would maintain peace and good behaviour; besides, they would report at the police station of their residence at least once in a month i.e. on the 10th of each month after their release. 9. 9. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentences of imprisonment of the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended subject to their furnishing personal bond and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. One of the sureties to be furnished by the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 each shall be that of a respectable person of their respective areas who shall along with the applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 undertake that during the period of suspension of sentence of imprisonment, the respective applicants/appellants No. 1 and 2 shall maintain peace and good behaviour; besides, the applicant/appellant No. 1-Mohinder Singh @ Baba @ Natha Singh shall report on the 10th of each month at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal and applicant/appellant No. 2- Swaran Singh shall report on the 10th of each month at Police Station Jodkian Distt. Mansa. The concerned Police Stations shall mark their presence on the 10th of each month. A copy of the order be also sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Karnal; Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa, SHO Police Station, Assandh and SHO Police Station, Jodkian for necessary compliance.