JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. In all, nine accused faced trial including the appellant. Three out of them, namely Krishna Yadav, Manoj Paswan and Santosh Yadav have earned acquittal whereas remaining six stand convicted for the charge under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, vide impugned judgment of learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi, dated 29.11.2011. The sentence imposed upon all the six accused is life imprisonment. They, however, have not been sentenced separately for conviction slapped upon them under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. All these convicted accused have filed their separate six appeals viz. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.841 of 2014 by Aditya Singh @ Bittu, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.850 of 2014 by Sujeet Yadav, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.852 of 2014 by Vivek Singh, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.862 of 2014 by Pradeep Yadav, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.36 of 2015 filed by Anil Yadav, and the appeal on hand [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.22 of 2015] by Sandeep Pradhan @ Sandip Pradhan @ Thapa (hereinafter to be referred as 'Sandeep'). 3. Sujeet Yadav, Vivek Singh and Aditya Singh @ Bittu have since been released on bail as substantive sentence slapped upon them stands suspended vide three different orders, whereas prayer qua Pradeep Yadav and Anil Yadav stands declined. 4. The records of all the aforesaid five appeals are tagged with the instant appeal. 5. Sandeep is now praying for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the main appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Rakesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar Samrendra, Advocates, and Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. With the assistance rendered by them, we have gone through the impugned judgment and material evidence available on record. 7. The case of the prosecution is summed up in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment and we do not feel the necessity of reproducing the same in our order. 8. One Ajit Yadav is the deceased in this case. He was the real brother of Sunil Yadav, the first informant. 7. The case of the prosecution is summed up in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment and we do not feel the necessity of reproducing the same in our order. 8. One Ajit Yadav is the deceased in this case. He was the real brother of Sunil Yadav, the first informant. The occurrence is of 14th June, 2009 at about 8:00 p.m. as one finds from the evidence available on record whereas in the ferdbeyan (initial statement) lodged at the instance of PW-Sunil Yadav, the time of occurrence is shown at about 6:00 p.m. As per the prosecution case, it is Sandeep, who happens to be the main assailant as from the shot released from his fire arm, the deceased received injury on the lateral chest area, which turned out to be fatal. Although, as per the case set up in the ferdbeyan, Sandeep had made indiscriminate firing on his brother (deceased), but there appears to be only one injury on the person of the deceased. 9. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that in all, the case of the prosecution is hinging upon the evidence of PW-Sunil Yadav, the first informant, P.W-Rajesh Yadav, P.W-Manjit Kumar Singh, P.W.-Surendra Prasad Singh and P.W.-Prayag Yadav. He submitted that when Sunil Yadav, the real brother of the deceased and the first informant, stepped into the witness box, he did not identify Sandeep in the Court at all. Learned senior counsel submitted that even the father of the deceased, P.W-Vijay Yadav, when stepped into the witness box, stated that, but for the deceased, every one from his family was present in the house. Learned counsel submitted that not only that even P.W.-Surendra Prasad Singh and P.W.-Prayag Yadav have also categorically stated that none from the family of the deceased was with the deceased. According to the learned counsel, it is only P.Ws.2 and 9, who otherwise have been declared hostile on the point of identification of the accused in the Court, have stated that along with them and the deceased, P.W.-Sunil Yadav was also present in Qualis. 10. Strengthening his arguments, learned Senior Counsel submitted that aforesaid P.W. Surendra Prasad Singh and P.W. Prayag Yadav have also not identified any of the accused in the Court. 10. Strengthening his arguments, learned Senior Counsel submitted that aforesaid P.W. Surendra Prasad Singh and P.W. Prayag Yadav have also not identified any of the accused in the Court. The case of Sandeep, on facts, thus turns out to be totally distinguishable from that of Anil Yadav and Pradeep Yadav, whose prayer for suspension of sentence stands declined, as both of them have been identified by P.W-Sunil Yadav in the Court during the trial, although, not identified by the remaining prosecution witnesses. He submitted that the case of the prosecution thus turns out to be very weak qua Sandeep. 11. Pointing out the aforesaid infirmities in the case of the prosecution, Mr. Singh submits that Sandeep, who is otherwise languishing in jail for the last more than four years and seven months, deserves the concession of suspension of sentence, moreso, when the instant appeal, being of the year 2015, is not likely to be heard in near future. 12. Learned State Counsel does not controvert the factual aspect of the case. However, prayer for bail is opposed by him vehemently. 13. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and without commenting upon the merits of the appeal, lest it may prejudice either side at the relevant stage of hearing of the appeal finally, appellant-Sandeep deserves the concession of suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. 14. Ordered accordingly. 15. Let appellant namely, Sandeep Pradhan @ Sandip Pradhan @ Thapa, be released on bail, during the pendency of the instant appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi, in connection with Sessions Trial No.174 of 2012.