JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 254 of 2025 : 1. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public Prosecutor, at the outset, has submitted that the counter affidavit is ready but the same could not have been filed, as such, leave has sought for to file the same in the Court. 2. Considering the said prayer, the said counter affidavit is taken on record. 3. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence in connection with judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC-Special Judge, Ramgarh in S.T. Case No.102 of 2016 arising out of Patratu (Barkakana O.P.) P.S. Case no. 267 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4473 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years with fine of Rs.10,000 for the offence under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that solely on the ground of period of custody, i.e., 09 years 01 month and 12 days (actual custody) and 09 years 11 months and 29 days (with remission), the present interlocutory application has been filed. 5. It has been contended that the appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up in near future, as such, the present interlocutory application may be allowed so that the appellant be enlarged on bail. 6. While on the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merit. However, she has admitted the period of custody on the basis of the averment made in the counter affidavit said to be more than half of the maximum sentenced awarded. 7. While on the other hand, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence on merit. However, she has admitted the period of custody on the basis of the averment made in the counter affidavit said to be more than half of the maximum sentenced awarded. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than half of the maximum sentence period, i.e., 09 years 01 month and 12 days (actual custody) and 09 years 11 months and 29 days (with remission) and since the appeal is of the year 2022 and there is no likelihood of the appeal to be taken up in near future, as such, the present interlocutory may be allowed. 8. This Court, on consideration of the said submission and considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Saudan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697 , is of view that the ground so taken for suspension of sentence requires consideration. 9. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that the sentence in connection with Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2016 arising out of Patratu (Barkakana O.P.) P.S. Case No. 267 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4473 of 2015, deserves to be suspended. 10. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed. 11. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-FTC-Special Judge, Ramgarh in S.T. Case No.102 of 2016 arising out of Patratu (Barkakana O.P.) P.S. Case no. 267 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4473 of 2015. 12. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.