JUDGMENT 1. While pressing this application it is submitted by learned Counsel that conviction of accused-applicant is based on circumstantial evidence but that is not framing a complete chain indicating only one conclusion about his definite involvement in the crime in-question. According to learned Counsel the incident is dated 19.9.2007 and the accused was arrested on 11.5.2008. Subsequent thereto at his instance an iron rod, axe and a torch were recovered. The axe is having bloodstains matching with the blood group of deceased but the blood roup of control soil is different. It is further submitted that the other recovered articles, those are, missing motor-cycle, iron-rod and torch were not having blood-stains and no material is available on record to connect those with the rime. It is asserted that the Trial Court heavily relied upon statements of PW-5 lari Ram and PW-6 Nathu Ram, who as a matter of fact, stated certain facts availed from one another person Khemdas, who was not produced in evidence. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the complainant opposed the application with the assertion that no explanation is given by the applicant with regard to availability of blood-stains matching of deceased at his Instance. 3. We have considered the arguments advanced and also examined the record. 4. The applicant is behind bars since 11.5.2008. His conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and out of those much emphasis is given by learned Public Prosecutor on the evidence relating to recovery of blood-stained 'kulhari' So far as the evidence adduced by Hari Ram (PW-5) and Nathu Ram (PW-6) is concerned, it is the position accepted that whatever facts they narrated, on which the Trial Court relied upon, were gathered from Shri Khemdas, who was rat produced before the Court as witness. 5. Having considered all these facts, without making any observation on nerits of case, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of the applicant(s). 6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu vide his judgment dated 21.12.2013 against the applicant(s) Shyam Lal S/o Likhmidas shall remain suspended till final disposal of aforesaid criminal appeal provided he/she/they executes two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each and a personal-bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each and a personal-bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court for his/her/their appearance in this Court on 12.5.2014 and subsequently before the Trial Court on the following conditions:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the Trial Court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the appellant(s) change the place of residence, he/she/they will give the changed address in writing to the Trial Court, High Court as well as to his/her/their Counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly is sureties change his/her/their address, they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused appellant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the accused appellant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. File shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the Trial Court. In case the said accused appellant(s) do/does not appear before the Trial Court, the learned Trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.Application allowed. *******