ORDER : I.A. No. 7620 of 2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. These appellants are before this Court in the instant appeal [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1300/2016], on being convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years of S.I. for the offence under Section 307 IPC with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further one year of S.I., S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 148 IPC and two years of S.I. for the offence under Section 325 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the occurrence is as a result of deliberate acts of the informant party in cultivating a piece of land, claimed by these appellants as per Bhugatbandha Deed (Ext.-B). The incident led to institution to an F.I.R. bearing Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 67 of 2012 registered by the appellants for the offence under Section 307 IPC (Ext.-A/3), prior in time to the instant FIR of Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 68 of 2012 instituted by the person of the informant party against the accused persons including the appellants under Sections 147, 323/149, 325/149, 307/149 and 148 IPC. Other accused have been convicted of lesser offence and sentence to undergo lesser duration. They are before this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1200/2016 where, they have been admitted to bail. The accusation against these appellants are of having inflicted injury through farsa, sword, Iron Rod etc. on the informant Safaul Ansari, Usman Mian, Yusuf Mian, the brother of the informant and Noorjahan Bibi, mother of the informant. It is however, submitted that the accusation are exaggerated and the opinion of the medical expert shows that injuries are simple in nature, except that of Yusuf Mian. The accusation of assault upon Yusuf Mian is of Yakub Mian and Nasir Mian i.e. Appellants No. 2 and 3, respectively. However, injuries reported by the Doctor is lacerated wound on the scalp and the grievous injury is on the forearms. Therefore, these two appellants are also entitled to the benefit of doubt as specific role of the individual person of assault have not been imputed. Otherwise also accusation of use of farsa on the head does not stand corroborated by the injuries, reported by the Doctor. Therefore, these two appellants are also entitled to the benefit of doubt as specific role of the individual person of assault have not been imputed. Otherwise also accusation of use of farsa on the head does not stand corroborated by the injuries, reported by the Doctor. The instant matter relates to a case and counter case over the claim of ownership and possession of a piece of land. Appellants, therefore, would be subjected to unnecessary incarceration, if not granted privilege of suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, they have made such a prayer in I.A. No. 7620 of 2016. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer. It is submitted by him that in the case of assault by both the sides of this nature, specific role of any particular accused is difficult to be attributed. The medical opinion, however, corroborates the injuries on the person of the informant party, one of which is also found to be grievous. The appellants have remained in custody since 28.9.2016 only, therefore, they do not deserve the privilege of bail at this stage. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the State. Upon consideration of the materials on record and the opinion of the medical expert in respect of the injuries attributed to these appellants, it appears that simple injuries have been found on the body of the informant party namely, Safaul Ansari, Usman Mian and Noorjahan Bibi, though the injury on the body of Yusuf Mian has been found to be grievous as per the X-ray report, referred to in Ext.-6, by the Medical Officer of PMCH, Dhanbad. The weapon attributed against the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are Farsa for causing such injury. It is a case and counter case between the parties relating to the same occurrence. In those circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellants have made out a case for suspension of sentence, during the pendency of this appeal. We, however, refrain from observing further on the merits of the case of the parties as it may prejudice the case at the time of final adjudication. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Let the appellants, above named, be released accordingly on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. We, however, refrain from observing further on the merits of the case of the parties as it may prejudice the case at the time of final adjudication. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Let the appellants, above named, be released accordingly on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara in connection with Sessions Trial No. 115/2013. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7620 of 2016 stands allowed.