JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 11256 of 2024 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant, under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 21.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 424 of 2018 arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 2039 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty for the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. and 25(1-A) of the Arms Act and Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act accordingly was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years, for commission of offence punishable u/s 307 I.P.C., apart from a fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default undergo S.I. for 4 months. He is further sentenced to undergo R.I for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-for committing offence punishable u/s 25(1A) of the Arms Act 1959 in default of fine he shall undergo S.I. for 3 months only and he shall further to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for committing offence punishable u/s 3 of explosive substance Act and in default of fine he shall undergo S.I. for 06 months only and all the sentences shall run concurrently and during under trial period be set off. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case even though nothing has been recovered from his possession. However, recovery is being said to be there by marking the seizure list but no signature has been obtained thereon and as such the said seizure list has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. 3. It has submitted that out of the maximum sentence of 10 years, as imposed upon the appellant, the appellant has already undergo about 6 years 9 months of sentence i.e., more than half of the sentence. 4. It has further been submitted that the appeal is of the year 2024 and as such there is no likelihood of taking up of the appeal in near future. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 6. 4. It has further been submitted that the appeal is of the year 2024 and as such there is no likelihood of taking up of the appeal in near future. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 6. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence, however, learned State counsel is fair enough in admitting the fact that the appellant has remained in custody for more than half of the custody. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records. 8. The fact that the petitioner has undergo about 6 years 9 months i.e., more than half of the sentence in custody out of the maximum sentence of 10 years, is not in dispute. 9. Further, the appeal is of the year 2024 and there is no likelihood of taking up of the appeal in near future as such, this Court is of the view that since the appellant has remained in custody for more than half of the sentence, the sentence is to be suspended, during pendency of the appeal. 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 Judicial Commissioner-XII-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 424 of 2018 arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 39 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 2039 of 2018. 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.