ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is the informant/complainant in FIR No.345/2019, registered at Police Station Giriyak, District Nalanda, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 302, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. 3. The case pertains to the murder of Mishri Prasad alias Mishri Gope, who was the father of the informant/complainant. It is alleged that the complainant’s father was surrounded by the accused persons, where respondent No.2 exhorted the other accused to kill him. The complainant’s father was consequently attacked with lathi and other weapons, which led to his instant death on the spot. 4. The Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 25.09.2021, convicted respondent No.2 and one Ramsharan Yadav under Section 302 IPC. Both of them have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- each. Respondent No.2 has challenged his conviction and sentence by preferring a Crl.A.(D.B.) No.706/2021 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. He also moved an application for suspension of sentence pending his appeal and vide the impugned order dated 05.04.2023, the High Court has suspended the sentence of respondent No.2 and released him on bail, after observing that he has spent approximately three and a half years in custody; there is no chance of appeal being taken up in the near future for a hearing and that there is no allegation of assault made against respondent No.2. The above-stated order is assailed by the appellant before this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record. 6. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, duly supported by learned State counsel, that respondent No.2 has criminal antecedents and there are 21 cases, most of which pertain to grave offences, registered against him from time to time. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has, of course, pointed out that in most of such cases, respondent No.2 has already been acquitted and in the pending cases, he is on bail. 7. On consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the High Court fell in error in suspending the sentence of respondent No.2 at such an early stage. It may be true that respondent No.2 has been convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC, but the fact remains that he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He has spent three and a half years in custody. It may be true that respondent No.2 has been convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC, but the fact remains that he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He has spent three and a half years in custody. Though there cannot be any straight jacket formula as to when and at what stage the sentence should be suspended, however, this Court, from time to time, has laid down broad guidelines for favourable consideration of the prayer for suspension of sentence, keeping in view the period already spent by a convict in custody. Similarly, while considering such a prayer, the criminal antecedents of a convict and likelihood of misuse of such concession, are also required to be examined, though it is for the appellate court to form an opinion as to whether or not such antecedents would cause an impediment against suspension of sentence. It seems that a specific plea was taken by the State before the High Court on the basis of the antecedents of respondent No.2, but the impugned order does not advert to such contention. 8. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is, accordingly, set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith. He shall, however, be entitled to seek suspension of sentence at an appropriate stage, and the High Court shall consider such a prayer as per its own merit without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 9. With the liberty aforementioned, the appeal stands allowed. 10. As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.