Order : 1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.24/2015 : Offences U/s Prison Punishment In default of payment of fine further undergo 302 of IPC Imprisonment for Life with the fine of Rupees 2000/-(Two thousand) - 308 of IPC Simple Imprisonment for 3 (Three) Years with the fine of Rupees 10,000/- (Ten thousand) Further 3 (Three) Months of Simple Imprisonment 323 of IPC Simple Imprionment for 6 (six) months - 2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C . for suspension of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the incident had happened on 27.04.2015, and due to some small altercation pertaining to Rs.100/-, a single blow by rod was inflicted by the present accused on the deceased. 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that though the merits of the case warrant intervention, but he is restricting his arguments to the prolonged period of incarceration endured by the appellant i.e. more than 10 years. 4. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant is that as the applicant has already undergone sentence of 11 years, 10 months and 21 days with remission as on 11.02.2025 (actual custody period 10 years) and there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in near future, thus, in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021 , the sentence of the applicant be suspended and he be enlarged on bail. 5. Further submissions have been made that there are no reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail. Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated 05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021 , wherein also observations have been made regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are applicable in the present case. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the application for suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the society. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the application for suspension of sentence with the submission that as the appellant-applicant has committed heinous offence, suspension of sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the society. However, he has not denied that the appellant-applicant has already undergone sentence of 11 years, 10 months and 21 days with remission as on 11.02.2025 during trial and after sentence. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal pertaining to year 2024 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of the present appeal in near future. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) observed an exception, which could be a broad guideline, which reads as follows :- "1. Heinous nature of crime : (a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy- no bail should be granted. " 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra), while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to ‘life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court’ inter-alia, issued the following directions :- “We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail.” 12. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail.” 12. Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also observations were made regarding grant of bail in cases where convicts have undergone sentence for sufficiently long time and appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions indicated therein. 13. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant- applicant has already undergone sentence for 10 years and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellant-applicant was involved in offence leading to his conviction for life, nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating circumstances for denial of suspension of sentences. 14. Consequently, following the order in the case of Sonadhar (supra) and observations made in Saudan Singh (supra), without making any observations on merits of the case only on account of the fact that 10 years’ sentences has already been undergone by the appellant-applicant, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentences of the appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal. 15. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C . is allowed and it is ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.24/2015 against the appellant- applicant, Mithlesh Alias Kari S/o Siya Ram 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/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 28.05.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below: 1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing 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. 16. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused- applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not been taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of the cases in the trial court. In case the said accused-applicants do not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.