ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. RULE. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. As per order dated 25.09.2017 passed earlier, the paper book containing record of the relevant evidence is produced for consideration of this application preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending final hearing of Criminal Appeal (against conviction) No. 1004 of 2017. 4. In the backdrop of the case of the prosecution about an incident which took place around 22.30 to 23.00 hours on 28th May 2013, seven persons including four unknown persons were the assailants in which the injured was inflicted knife and sword blows and the injured succumbed to such injuries. At the end of the trial the conviction was recorded qua the present applicant and another accused under sections 302 of IPC and sentence of 14 years Rigorous Imprisonment was awarded. 5. Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant has taken us through the entire record and findings recorded by the learned trial judge and it is submitted by him that barring two weak pieces of evidence, namely, so called identification of the applicant in Test Identification parade and discovery of two knives at his instance, allegedly used in commission of crime, no material has appeared in the form of evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant was not identified in the court. Our attention is drawn to the nature of recording of certain factual aspects in paragraph 36 of the judgment by the learned trial judge and involvement of three assailants being Ravi @ Pagli, Ravi @ Katelo and Ravi @ Chhota Don and later on two assailants were shown absconding in the charge sheet. The applicant was not named at any point of time and the version of four eye witnesses of having seen the incident during the night in the light of the streetlights and their different version create doubt about even their presence is highly unreliable. He further submitted that simply because knife was discovered at the instance of the present applicant having the group of deceased is no ground to convict the applicant. He further submitted that simply because knife was discovered at the instance of the present applicant having the group of deceased is no ground to convict the applicant. The above aspect can be taken care of at the stage of final hearing of appeal whether the evidence can be examined in detail. But, at this stage, sentence be suspended by enlarging the applicant on bail. 6. Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was initially an unknown person, but, was later on, identified in the Test Identification Parade for which Executive Magistrate has deposed and usage of sword and knife in inflicting injuries is borne out from the injury marks found in column no. 17 of the post mortem report and so deposed by the Post Mortem Doctor. That the deceased was initially chased by the assailants who was inflicted repeated blows by above weapons. There is no illegality or impropriety in believing the evidence discovery of two knives on which bloodstains found and FLS confirmed the group of the deceased over such knives. The applicant was also identified in Test Identification Parade and other attending circumstances of Investigating Officer relied upon by the learned trial judge at this stage does not warranting suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the convict of offence under section 302 of IPC and imposed life imprisonment by the learned trial judge. 7. We have perused the paper book containing almost all the relevant oral as well as documentary evidence, which includes testimonies of four eye witnesses and discovery panchnama and FSL/Serological Report, panchnamas of Test Identification Parade and discovery and testimonies of Executive Magistrate and Investigating Officer. The above nature of evidence is considered in the context of reasons and findings of the learned trial judge. In comment in detail on such evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution, but considering what is recorded in paragraphs 36 to 39 of the judgment by the learned trial judge, we find that the conviction recorded by the learned trial judge based on the evidence can be gone into in detail at the stage of final hearing, but nature of evidence connecting the accused with the crime, perused at this stage by us, persuade us to suspend the sentence and grant bail by imposing conditions. 8. The present application is allowed. 8. The present application is allowed. The applicant is enlarged on bail on his furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and personal bond of the like amount on usual terms and on the following further conditions:— (a) The applicant shall not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty. (b) The applicant shall not try to tamper with the evidence or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner. (c) He shall maintain law and order. (d) The applicant will give his current as well as permanent address and that of the surety before the concerned court. (e) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week. 9. In the meantime, the substantive sentence shall remain under suspension. Bail bond before the trial Court. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. 10. The observation herein above shall have no bearing on the case at the stage of final hearing.