ORDER I.A.No. 4273 of 2016 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The appellant, who stands convicted for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code has been sentenced to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 2 months. He has been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 3 years along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)a of Arms Act. He has further been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 17 of C.L.A Act, in default of aforesaid two payment of fines, he has further sentenced to under imprisonment for 2 months. All sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Appellant faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 353/149/307/149, 414/149 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-B)a/26/27/35 of Arms Act and 27 of C.L.A. Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the entire case of the prosecution is based on allegations of a serious encounter with M.C.C Naxalites in Kalipur Forest under Kuru Police Station, but there has been no injuries or causalities on either side. Appellant was however apprehended allegedly with 303 bore police rifles and 24 rounds of cartridges kept in vindolia and five pieces chargers. Though it is alleged that 25 to 30 rounds of firing were made by the extremists, but no empty cartridges were found from the spot. Appellant has however been convicted on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, who are the members of raiding party. Independent witnesses in whose presence the seizure-list was prepared, however, have not been examined though author of seizure-list, namely, Sashikant Kujur has been examined. It is submitted that appellant has no criminal antecedent and has never misused privilege of bail also, as would be apparent from the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties. Appellant has undergone custody for more than one and half years after conviction and 10 months during course of trial. Hence, he deserves the benefit of suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal, which may be finally decided after several years. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. Appellant has undergone custody for more than one and half years after conviction and 10 months during course of trial. Hence, he deserves the benefit of suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal, which may be finally decided after several years. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that appellant has been apprehended from the place of occurrence where several rounds of firing were made by M.C.C Extremists. Appellant has also disclosed the name of several accomplices, who are still at large. Fire arms have been recovered from his custody and sanction of prosecution has also been granted by Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, he does not deserve the privilege of suspension of sentence. 6. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment as also Lower Court Records. Upon forensic scrutiny of material on record as adduced during the course of trial, we are of the opinion that appellant deserves the privilege of suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. We, however, refrain from commenting further on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of the parties at the time of final adjudication. Accordingly, let the above-named appellant be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lohardaga in connection with S.T. No. 244 of 2006. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4273 of 2016 stands disposed of.