JUDGMENT Subodh abhyankar, J. - Shri Rituraj R. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for appellant No.1 Darbar Singh s/o Bhim Singh Rajput, appellant No.2 Virendra Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh Rajput, appellant No.3 Toofan Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh Rajput, appellant No.4 Baje Singh s/o Bhim Singh Rajput, appellant No.5 Rajendra Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh Rajput, appellant No.6 Narayan Singh s/o Karan Singh Rajput and appellant No.7 Jitendra Singh s/o Karan Singh Rajput. Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government advocate for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh, on advance notice. Heard on Ia No.2188/2022, first application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellants. The present appellants have been convicted and sentenced by learned additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, District Mandsaur (MP) in Sessions Trial No.CIS ST/28/2016 vide judgment dated 29th January, 2022, as under: - Conviction Sentence Section act RI Fine amount Imprisonment in lieu of fine 148 IPC 2 years Rs.1,000/- 1 month RI 323 r/w 149 IPC 1 yea Rs.500/- 1 month RI Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them. after conviction, the jail sentence of the appellants has already been suspended by the trial Court itself up to 28.02.2022. It is further submitted that short sentence of two years RI has been imposed on each of the appellants and there are fair chances of success in the appeal and there is no possibility of early disposal of this appeal in near future and if the sentence is not suspended, then the present appeal filed by the appellant (s) may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances and looking to the short sentence imposed on the appellants, counsel for the appellants prays for suspension of jail sentence of the appellants and grant of bail to them. Counsel for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh, on the other hand, opposed the application by submitting that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellants on bail; hence the application filed by the appellants be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh, on the other hand, opposed the application by submitting that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellants on bail; hence the application filed by the appellants be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties as also looking to the short sentence of three years RI awarded to them, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application for suspension of custodial sentence deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, Ia No.2188/2022 is allowed, subject to depositing the fine amount, if any, and it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond by each of the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for his / her regular appearance before concerned trial Court, the execution of the custodial part of the sentence imposed against the appellant (s) shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal. The appellant (s), after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his / her presence before the concerned trial Court on 11.05.2022 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the concerned Court in this regard. Let the record (physical) of the case from the concerned trial Court be requisitioned; and list the matter on the question of admission along with Criminal appeal No.1492/2022 for analogous hearing. C.C. as per rules.