ORDER : This is an application for suspension of sentence of conviction ordered by the General Court Martial on 05.09.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 69 of the Army Act read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. 3. He would submit that the conviction was ordered on 05.09.2021 and by that time, he had undergone almost one year of pre trial detention. Though he has preferred an appeal after his conviction, which remained pending and till date, it has not been decided. In this manner, without there being a decision on appeal, the petitioner has undergone more than three years and three months out of five years of jail sentence awarded to him. He would further submit that the appeal has not been decided and the application for suspension of sentence has also been rejected. Therefore in such circumstances, only on the ground that the petitioner had undergone more than half of the jail sentence awarded to him, application for suspension of sentence ought to be allowed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the application for suspension of sentence has been rejected prima facie on the basis of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed, taking into consideration the evidence of the minor (PW-6), the order of suspension does not warrant any interference. 5. We have gone through the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal and also the material on record. 6. The appeal has already been admitted and is pending for final hearing before the Tribunal. However, in the meantime, the petitioner has undergone more than three years and three months of jail sentence out of total sentence of five years which has been awarded. It is thus, seen that the petitioner had undergone 2/3rd of the jail sentence awarded on him. The appeal however so far has not been heard finally. Therefore, we are of the view that only on this ground, the petitioner is entitled to grant a bail otherwise the very right of appeal may be completely frustrated and rendered illusionary where neither the appeal is heard finally nor bail is granted and the person undergoes the entire period of jail sentence without hearing. 7. Therefore, we are of the view that only on this ground, the petitioner is entitled to grant a bail otherwise the very right of appeal may be completely frustrated and rendered illusionary where neither the appeal is heard finally nor bail is granted and the person undergoes the entire period of jail sentence without hearing. 7. We further take into consideration the nature and gravity of the allegation also and find that the maximum sentence awarded for the alleged commission of offences is seven years and the petitioner has been awarded minimum of the sentence. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of alleged act on the part of the petitioner, we are of the view that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was liable to be suspended, particularly in view of the fact that he has undergone three years and three months of jail sentence out of five years awarded to him. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order of the tribunal is set aside. The substantive jail sentence awarded to the petitioner is directed to be suspended and he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with the one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Jailer, District Jail, Sriganganagar.