Order : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. 1. This is third application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of the accused-applicant. The first application for suspension of sentence filed by the accused-applicant has been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2019 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No.97/2019 and the second application for suspension of sentence filed by the accused-applicant has been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.07.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. II Suspension of Sentence Application No.64/2022. 2. The present application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the accused-applicant under Section 430 of B.N.S.S., 2023 challenging the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.2, Baran (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No.09/2018 whereby, learned trial Court while dismissing the case filed on behalf of the accused-applicant, passed the order of conviction and sentence against the accused-applicant for the offences punishable:- a) Under Section 366 of IPC - Five years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default thereof, further sentence of six months simple imprisonment. b) Under Section 363 of IPC - Five years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default thereof, further sentence of six months simple imprisonment. c) Under Section 376 of IPC - Ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default thereof, further sentence of six months simple imprisonment. d) Under Section 5(g)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default thereof, further sentence of six months simple imprisonment. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the trial Court, the present third application for suspension has been filed by the accused-applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that vide order dated 11.01.2019, the maximum sentence awarded to the accused-applicant is ten years and as on 12.02.2025, he has served the sentence of 8 years, one months and 24 days without remission. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused- applicant has a strong prima-facie case in his favour and there is likelihood that the accused-applicant will succeed in the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant contended that the accused-applicant is behind the bars since 20.12.2016. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused- applicant has a strong prima-facie case in his favour and there is likelihood that the accused-applicant will succeed in the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant contended that the accused-applicant is behind the bars since 20.12.2016. Learned counsel also contended that the appeal filed by the accused-applicant is pending since the year 2019 and there are no chances of hearing of the said appeal in near future, therefore, this third application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant be allowed and his sentence be suspended. 6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the accused-applicant placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh {Criminal Appeal No.308/2022 [SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021]}, dated 25.02.2022. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor while vehemently opposing the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant, submitted that the accused-applicant has been convicted for henious offences and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of benefit of bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the custody certificate of the accused-applicant dated 10.02.2025 and the same is taken on record. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the report dated 12.02.2025 forwarded by SHO, Mahila Thana, District Baran, which reveals that the victim/complainant has duly been informed about filing of this third application for suspension of sentence. The report dated 12.02.2025 is taken on record. 9. Despite information, none appeared on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose the prayer made on behalf of the accused-applicant. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonadhar Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh [SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021], dated 15.09.2022, while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to ‘life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court’ interalia, 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Raut Vs. State of GNCT Delhi [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).22968/2020], dated 23.07.2021, has held as under:- “The petitioner was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the High Court is pending. An application was moved by the petitioner before the High Court for suspension of sentence which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. We are informed by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has undergone sentence of 7 years and 4 months. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no likelihood of the appeal being decided soon. The Counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, which was accepted by the trial court shows that the petitioner has committed a grave offence under Section 302. He requested this Court to permit the petitioner to renew his application for suspension of sentence after some time or direct the appeal to be heard. We are not inclined to give any direction to the High Court to dispose of the appeal out of turn. Taken into account the fact that the petitioner has undergone sentence of more than 7 years, we deem it fit and proper to grant his prayer for suspension of sentence. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The special leave petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 13. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The special leave petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 13. In the case in hand, the custody certificate of the accused- applicant reveals that the accused-applicant has served more than 8 years of sentence without remission, whereas the maximum sentence awarded to him is ten years and also, there is no other criminal antecedent against the accused-applicant. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the accused-applicant is pending since the year2019 and there are no possibilities that the said appeal may be disposed of in near future. 14. Considering the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Saudan Singh (supra), Sonadhar (supra) and Ranjeet Raut (supra) and also the fact that the accused- applicant has served the sentence for more than 8 years and also considering the fact that the appeal is not likely to be disposed of in near future, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-applicant. 15. Accordingly, this third application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, No.2, Baran vide order dated 11.01.2019, in Sessions Case No.09/2018 against the accused-applicant namely, Akash Thakur S/o Dharm Bahadur Singh, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 17.03.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- "1. That the applicant 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. That the applicant 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 addresses, the applicant will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial court." 16. 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 accused-applicant does not appear before the trial Court, learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail. 17. Any other pending applications also stand disposed of.