JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. I.A. No. 2420/2016 In all three persons who were booked in this case including the applicant-appellant, the other two were Mukesh Singh, S/o Late Ram Bilash Singh and Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithilesh Singh. Till the challan was filed against the applicant-appellant and co-convict Mukesh Singh, Police had not completed the investigation vis-a-vis Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithilesh Singh, the third accused, therefore, the applicant-appellant and his co-accused Mukesh Singh faced the trial who have now suffered conviction for the charge under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 29.09.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, VII, Palamau at Daltonganj. The other co-convict Mukesh Singh has filed his separate appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 756/2014. 2. It needs to be mention here that the prayer for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal qua the present appellant, has been declined vide order dated 21.01.2015. It is thus the second attempt made by the applicant-appellant. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. 4. The changed circumstances now projected by the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant is that Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithilesh Singh against whom final report was not filed along with the present applicant-appellant, has since been granted concession of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 229/2016 decided on 22.08.2016 by the learned Single Judge, photostat copy thereof is placed on record. She has submitted that the present case is resting upon the oral dying declaration made by the deceased after receiving firearm injury at the hands of three persons including the applicant-appellant and his other two co-accused including Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithilesh Singh. This was the evidence on oath during the trial faced by the applicant-appellant and his co-accused Mukesh Singh. Learned counsel submitted that since Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithilesh Singh who has also been ascribed active role in releasing fire shot, has been granted concession of anticipatory bail, that turns out to be a changed circumstance entitling the applicant-appellant for concession of suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. Strengthening her argument further, learned counsel submitted that as per the report of the Doctor who conducted autopsy, there were two injuries on the person of the deceased which could be caused by one and the same weapon. Strengthening her argument further, learned counsel submitted that as per the report of the Doctor who conducted autopsy, there were two injuries on the person of the deceased which could be caused by one and the same weapon. Learned counsel submitted that it appears from the entire evidence set up by the prosecution that the oral dying declaration which has been made the basis of conviction of the accused is, in fact, a coined up story by the prosecution in order to rope the person of their choice. It is further submitted that the applicant-appellant is languishing in jail for the last more than four years. 5. The relief sought for is opposed by the learned State Counsel. 6. Refraining ourselves from commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either side at the relevant stage of hearing of the appeal finally and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, specially the changed circumstance of granting concession of anticipatory bail to the co-accused Mithilesh Kumar Singh @ Mithilesh Singh in A.B.A. No. 229/2016 coupled with the fact that the appellant is languishing in jail for the last four years and there appears to be no chance of hearing of the main appeal finally on account of heavy pendency of other appeals, he deserves the concession of suspension of sentence 7. Resultantly, the instant application (I.A. No. 2420/2016) is allowed. 8. Let appellant namely, Pravin Tiwary @ Parveen Tiwary @ Parveen Kumar Tiwary, be released on bail, during the pendency of the instant appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 340/2012. Application allowed.