JUDGMENT Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. - Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sekhar Sinha, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State, and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant, on the Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 2891 of 2017, wherein prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail. 2. Mr. Tripathy submitted that the appellant has been languishing in custody since 1-6-2012 i.e., near about five years and there is no material against the appellant. It is submitted that no charge has been framed under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 302-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code only. 3. In this regard, Mr. Tripathy has relied upon the judgment rendered in the cases of Hussain v. Union of India, reported in 2017 (2) JBCJ 256 (SC) : ( AIR 2017 SC 1362 ) , Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 387 : ( AIR 2005 SC 3669 ) and Angana v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 767 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1669 ) and submitted that in the said cases, it has been stated that there may be cases where even after the lapse of five years the convicts may, under the special circumstances of the case, be held not entitled to bail pending the disposal of the appeals filed by them. This case is not coming under the purview of those case, since in the instant case the circumstantial evidence i.e., the dead body was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. The co-appellant namely, Nishi Rani Kerkatta, has already been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 62 of 2015) on 28-3-2017. It is further submitted that this appeal is not likely to be heard within ten years, as so many matters are pending for hearing. Therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 4. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant, assisted by Mr. Sekhar Sinha, learned Addl. Appeal (DB) No. 62 of 2015) on 28-3-2017. It is further submitted that this appeal is not likely to be heard within ten years, as so many matters are pending for hearing. Therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 4. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant, assisted by Mr. Sekhar Sinha, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submitted that earlier the prayer for bail of the present appellant has been rejected by this Court on merit on 30th April, 2015 and there is no supervening circumstance to admit the appellant on bail. It is a heinous offence and hence the appellant should not be granted bail. In this regard, Mr. Roy has relied upon the judgment rendered in the cases of State of Haryana v. Hasmat, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 175 : (AIR 2004 DC 3936) ; Khilari v. State of U.P. and Anr., reported in AIR 2008 SC 1882 , and an unreported judgment passed by this Court in Cri. Appeal (DB) No. 1007 of 2012 on 19th December, 2012 (Reported in 2013 (3) AIR Jhar R 36. It is submitted that in view of the ratio, laid down in the aforesaid cases, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. Perused the judgments cited by the parties and on perusal of the same, this Court finds that Section 389, Cr. P.C., 1973 deals with suspension of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence; discretion of Court and the scope and manner of exercising such powers and the nature of offence. The Court has to consider each case on the basis of (i) nature of the offence, (ii) manner in which occurrence had taken place and (iii) whether in any manner bail granted earlier had been misused. The Court has ample power and discretion to suspend sentence but that discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances as also the fact that the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected earlier and the appellant has not completed five years in custody, this Court is not inclined to release the appellant on bail at this stage. 6. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances as also the fact that the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected earlier and the appellant has not completed five years in custody, this Court is not inclined to release the appellant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is hereby rejected. 7. However, the appellant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completion of five years in custody. 8. I.A. No. 2891 of 2017 stands disposed of.