ORDER : 1. Heard on fourth application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants namely, Balchand S/o Shri Jailal & Mahaveer @ Bula S/o Shri Balchand @ Bala. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that even though the appellants’ jail sentence with benefits of remission has exceeded 12 years by now, the appeal has not been heard. He would submit that though the case was directed to be listed on 15.01.2024, it was not taken up for hearing. He would further submit that present is not a case of extraordinary or extenuating circumstances that despite such a long period of jail sentence having undergone by the appellants, the application should be rejected only on that ground. Therefore, when the appeal is not being heard finally, the application may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned GA-cum-AAG opposed the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and would submit that earlier applications were considered and rejected on merits. He would submit that the case was directed to be listed for final hearing on 15.01.2024. If for some reason, hearing could not take place, that does not entitle the appellants to get benefit. He would submit that present is a case of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and the prosecution case not only rests on eye-witness account, but also corroborating circumstantial evidence. 4. True it is that earlier the applications for grant of bail were rejected. However, even though, the case was directed to be listed for final hearing on 15.01.2024, there is nothing in the order-sheet to show that the case was listed on that date for final hearing. 5. Submission of learned State Counsel that because of the filing of the application for suspension of sentence, the case could not be taken up for final hearing, is not a blame to be laid on the appellants for delay in final hearing of the appeal. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.308/2022 (SLP) (Crl.) No.4633/2021, decided on 25.02.2022] has observed as under:- “The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.308/2022 (SLP) (Crl.) No.4633/2021, decided on 25.02.2022] has observed as under:- “The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him” Present is not a case of extenuating circumstances against the appellants in the sense that it could be categorized as a case of exceptional nature. The incident is of assault and death has taken place on account of one single lacerated wound on the head. 7. We further find that including the benefit of remission, the appellants have undergone now 12 years of jail sentence and they may also be entitled to remission and release in near future, may be within two years. 8. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the ground that the appellants have undergone substantial part of their jail sentence, appeal having remained pending without decision, we are inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence. 9. Accordingly, fourth application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellants namely, (1) Balchand S/o Shri Jailal & (2) Mahaveer @ Bula S/o Shri Balchand @ Bala shall remain suspended and they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one surety of the like amount by each of the appellants to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, for their appearance before the concerned Trial Court on 24.03.2025 and on all such further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than six months, during the pendency of this appeal.