ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel representing the applicant appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned Judgment and the material available on record. 2. The appellant applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 10/2017 (CIS No. 52/2017) : Offences Sentences Fine Section 302 IPC 3 Times Life Imprisonment 3 Times Rs. 20,000/- 3. The case involves triple murders of one Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav and his children Deepak and Jyoti. The dead bodies of the three victims were found locked inside the House No. 2/133, Housing Board, Hanumangarh Junction where, Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav resided with his wife Smt. Reema (the co-convict) and his two deceased children. The prosecution has come out with a case that Smt. Reema was involved in an extramarital affair with the appellant herein and that both conspired to kill Shri Shambhu Sharan Yadav and the two children and then absconded. When the foul smell started emanating from the house, the matter was reported to the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction who broke open the lock of the house and found the three dead bodies lying inside. An FIR No. 372/2016 was registered for the offences under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC and investigation was commenced. After conclusion of investigation, the appellant Sunil Yadav and the co-accused Smt. Reema were charge-sheeted and finally, both were convicted and sentenced as above. The appellant, who is in custody since 30.07.2016, has approached this Court by way of this application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentences awarded to him by the trial court. 4. Reply to the application for suspension of sentences has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Shri H.S.S. Kharlia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Harvinder, Advocate representing the applicant appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case as against the appellant by convincing evidence. The prosecution case was based on ocular/direct testimony and circumstantial evidence. 5. Shri H.S.S. Kharlia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Harvinder, Advocate representing the applicant appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case as against the appellant by convincing evidence. The prosecution case was based on ocular/direct testimony and circumstantial evidence. However, the star prosecution witness Neelam Yadav (PW-7), wife of the appellant, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile and thus, there is no direct evidence against the appellant who was convicted on the basis of three circumstances: (i) Extramarital affair with the co-accused Smt. Reema; (ii) Recovery of blood stained vest having same blood group as that of the deceased child Jyoti (AB); and (iii) Circumstance of abscondence of the accused appellant from the place of incident after committing the murders. 6. Shri Kharlia pointed out that the appellant was arrested on the very day of registration of the FIR as is evident from the testimony of Constable Pradeep Singh (PW-9) and thus, the conclusion of the learned trial court that the appellant absconded from the place of incident, is totally unsubstantiated. He further submitted that the allegation regarding the appellant having been involved in an extramarital affair with the co-accused Smt. Reema is totally conjectural because the witness Mahesh (PW-1), who levelled this allegation, stated that one Ajay had told him regarding the extramarital affair of these two accused. Ajay, upon being examined as PW-4, gave evidence of extra-judicial confession made by both the accused at the police station and also stated that Neelam Yadav (PW-7) and Ashrafi (PW-5) told him regarding the two accused being involved in an extramarital affair. However, neither Neelam Yadav (PW-7) nor Ashrafi (PW-5) supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Regarding the recovery of blood stained vest, the contention of Shri Kharlia was that the I.O. claimed to have recovered the vest from the body of the accused on 30.07.2016 at 06.10 PM. But this claim of the I.O. is falsified from the evidence of Malkhana Incharge Virendra Singh (PW-10) who admitted that the Article Nos. 1 to 13 (which included the vest of Shri Sunil Yadav) were deposited by the SHO Ranveer Singh at 04.30 PM. Shri Kharlia thus urged that the recovery has been fabricated and hence, there is no evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime. 1 to 13 (which included the vest of Shri Sunil Yadav) were deposited by the SHO Ranveer Singh at 04.30 PM. Shri Kharlia thus urged that the recovery has been fabricated and hence, there is no evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime. On these submissions, Shri Kharlia implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the applicant appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged that the prosecution has proved its case regarding the appellant being involved in the gruesome conspiracy and murder of the three innocent victims by leading unimpeachable circumstantial evidence. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the star prosecution witnesses Neelam Yadav (PW-7) and Ashrafi (PW-5), who gave a semblance of direct testimony regarding extramarital affair between the appellant and the co-accused Smt. Reema, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The conclusion of the trial court that the appellant absconded from the place of incident is not substantiated in light of the fact that he was arrested on 30.07.2016 i.e. on the very day, the FIR came to be registered. The circumstance of recovery of the blood stained vest of the accused appellant comes under a cloud of doubt from the evidence of the Maalkhana Incharge Virendra Singh (PW-10) who admitted in his cross-examination that the vest along with other articles were deposited in the Maalkhana by the SHO Ranveer Singh at 04.30 PM. On the contrary, the claim of the I.O. is that the accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/33) at 05.15 PM and the recovery of the vest is shown to have been effected at 06.10 PM. vide recovery memo (Ex.P/35). The trial court discarded the evidence of extra-judicial confession while recording finding at Para No. 18 of the impugned Judgment. 8. In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant applicant has available to him strong and plausible grounds so as to assail the impugned Judgment. He has remained in custody for a period in excess of 5 ½ years. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future. 9. 8. In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant applicant has available to him strong and plausible grounds so as to assail the impugned Judgment. He has remained in custody for a period in excess of 5 ½ years. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in near future. 9. In this view of the matter and, having regard to the facts and circumstance as available on record, we deem it just and proper to suspend the sentences awarded to the appellant applicant, during pendency of the appeal. 10. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, vide judgment dated 15.10.2019 in Sessions Case No. 10/2017 (CIS No. 52/2017) against the appellant-applicant Sunil Yadav, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 22.02.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 11. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.