JUDGMENT : Jaspal Singh, J. Instant application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of applicants/appellants during the pendency of instant appeal. 2. Learned counsel for applicants/appellants contended that case of applicants/appellants for suspension of sentence and release on bail is covered by Clause (iii) of paragraph 29 of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Daler Singh v. State of Punjab; 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 316. He also relied upon judgment rendered in the case of Shinda v. State of Punjab; 2013 (3) RCR (Crl.) 557. 3. Per Contra learned State counsel has opposed the application on the ground that the case of applicants/appellants does not fall under Clause (iii) of paragraph 29 of above-referred judgment. Rather it falls under Clause (ii) thereof. As such, applicants/appellants does not deserve the concession of bail. 4. This Court has considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through above-referred judgments. 5. It would be apposite to reproduce Clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 29 of judgment delivered in Daler Singh's case (supra). The same reads as under : "(ii) where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession commercial quantity of the contraband, he shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of four years, which must include at least fifteen months after conviction. (iii) Where the convict is sentenced for ten years for having in his conscious possession, merely marginally more than non-commercial quantity, as classified in the table, he shall be entitled to bail if he has already undergone a total sentence of three years, which must include at least twelve months after conviction." 6. A glance at the afore-said clauses makes it crystal clear that where convict is sentenced to imprisonment for ten years for having contraband in his conscious possession, merely marginally more than non-commercial quantity, he is entitled to bail if he has already undergone total sentence of three years, which must include at least twelve months after conviction. 7. Clause (ii) is not attracted in the case in hand as the quantity of poppy husk allegedly recovered from applicants-appellants is marginally more than commercial quantity. As such, their case is covered under clause (iii) of para No. 29. 8. 7. Clause (ii) is not attracted in the case in hand as the quantity of poppy husk allegedly recovered from applicants-appellants is marginally more than commercial quantity. As such, their case is covered under clause (iii) of para No. 29. 8. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, applicants/appellants were allegedly found in possession of 60 Kgs of poppy husk. In the case of Shinda (supra), convict was allegedly found in possession of 65 Kgs of poppy husk. He was granted the concession of suspension of sentence, considering the same would be the quantity marginally more than non-commercial. Since, applicants/appellants were allegedly found in possession of 60 Kgs of poppy husk, this Court is of the considered view that they also satisfied the requirement envisaged under Clause (iii) of paragraph 29 of judgment in the case of Daler Singh (supra). 9. Resultantly, in view of facts narrated above, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, instant application is allowed and sentence imposed upon applicants/appellants shall remain suspended, during the pendency of instant appeal, subject to their furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Hoshiarpur.