ORDER : 1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.08.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, in Sessions Case No.07/2016: Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine 147 IPC 2 years’ S.I. Rs.2,000/- 2 Months’ S.I. 148 IPC 3 Year’s S.I. Rs.3,000/- 3 Months’ S.I. 323/149 IPC 1 Years’ S.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 Months’ S.I. 324/149 IPC 3 Years’ SI Rs.3,000/- 3 Months’ S.I. 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 6 Months’ R.I. 2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the application for suspension of sentence under Section 430 B.N.S.S. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal and for release on bail. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the accused-applicant. 4. On perusal of the file, it appears that the applicant is in custody for about 10 years (including remission) 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 ought to have been suspended and he should be enlarged on bail. 5. Further, there are no reasons and/or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail. In the case of Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No. 4633/2021 decided on 05.10.2021, observations have also 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 Public Prosecutor 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 about 10 years (including remission) during trial and after sentence. 7. We have perused the file and the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year 2008 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of the present appeal in near future. 9. 7. We have perused the file and the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Looking to the fact that criminal appeals pertaining to year 2008 also are pending for hearing, there is no likelihood of hearing of the present appeal in near future. 9. 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.” 10. 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. 11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the appellant- applicant has already undergone sentence for about 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 sentence. 12. 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, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant, namely, Gauri Shankar S/o Sh. Hurji Manat, during the pendency of the appeal. 13. 12. 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, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the appellant-applicant, namely, Gauri Shankar S/o Sh. Hurji Manat, during the pendency of the appeal. 13. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 430 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur vide judgment dated 01.08.2019 in Sessions Case No.07/2016, against the appellant-applicant, namely, Gauri Shankar S/o Sh. Hurji Manat shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 14.10.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below: 1. That he will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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. 14. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case relating to original case in which the accused-applicant was 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-applicant does not appear before the trial court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.