JUDGMENT : NAVNEET KUMAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant nominated by the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and the learned A.P.P. representing the State. 2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail during pendency of the instant criminal appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction 29.02.2024 and order of sentence dated 02.03.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2016 arising out of Simariya P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and a default sentence of S.I. for 6 months. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that both parties are ‘Gotias’ (cousin) and there had been a land dispute between them and their enmity is an admitted fact. Further, it has been pointed out that three houses were said to have been set on fire by the appellant including the houses of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 but neither any seizure list nor any burnt articles have been brought on record in order to substantiate the version of the eye witnesses cum victims of the case, who are P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 when they are admittedly on inimical terms with the appellant and in the absence of their versions bring substantiated by independent witness, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge leveled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It has further been pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the present case when both parties are on inimical terms and no independent witnesses have been examined, non examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the appellant in view of the fact that neither seizure list nor burnt articles have been brought on record to corroborate the charges leveled against the appellant. Further, it has been pointed out one defence witness has been examined as D.W.1 on behalf of the appellant who has not supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that enmity between both the parties was there due to land dispute between the parties, therefore, appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, it has been pointed out one defence witness has been examined as D.W.1 on behalf of the appellant who has not supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that enmity between both the parties was there due to land dispute between the parties, therefore, appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further pointed out that appellant is in custody since 29.02.2024 and since the appeal is not likely to be taken up for hearing in the near future, and, therefore, appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the contentions raised by the appellant and submitted that all the eye witnesses cum victims of the case i.e., P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have supported the case of the prosecution very consistently and therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the IPC and there is no legal ground to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witnesses cum victim and therefore appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the trial court record, depositions of witnesses and other exhibits. 6. In view of the persuasive submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the appellant named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Chatra in connection with Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2016 arising out of Simariya P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016. 8. I.A. No. 13686 of 2024 is allowed.