ORDER : Sudhir Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo an additional simple imprisonment for one year. 3. By order dated 19.07.2023, the appeal was admitted and L.C.R. was called for by a Bench of this Court and suspension of sentence and prayer for bail of the appellant was to be considered after receipt of the L.C.R. The State was also granted two weeks’ time to file written objection/written show cause in terms of first proviso to Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now, the L.C.R. has been received but from perusal of the office notes dated 11.08.2023, it appears that the written objection has not been filed on behalf of the State. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial court. The learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that he is in custody since 03.10.2019. He has remained in custody for approximately four years and there is no chance of appeal being taken up in near future for hearing in its usual course. There is no direct evidence against the appellant. The only evidence on the basis of which the name of the appellant has figured is that a ‘Tangi’ is said to have been recovered on the basis of self-confession made before the police from the house of the appellant. The ‘Tangi’ is usually used for cutting the wood and it is a common house-hold tool in the village. The said ‘Tangi’ was sent for F.S.L. examination. From the F.S.L. report, it is apparent that there is no conclusive finding that there was a human blood found on the ‘Tangi’. Further, it has not been ascertained by the F.S.L. report that the blood which was collected and sent from the place of occurrence and the blood which was found on the ‘Tangi’ is of the same blood group. Further, it has not been ascertained by the F.S.L. report that the blood which was collected and sent from the place of occurrence and the blood which was found on the ‘Tangi’ is of the same blood group. In absence of such conclusive finding, it would be difficult to ascertain the participation of the appellant in the present case. 5. Learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and has submitted that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, during the pendency of the present criminal appeal, let the sentence of the appellant, namely, Gajendra Singh @ Gaji Singh, be suspended and the appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 527/2019, arising out of Nabinagar P.S. Case No. 272/2019. 7. So far realization of fine imposed upon the appellant is concerned, it is also stayed during the pendency of the present appeal.