D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.)PRESENT interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1995/ 32 of 2003, to the present appellant, who is original accused no. 1.
(2.)HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima facie, a case against the present appellantaccused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eye witnesses, who are P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P 4. The depositions of these eye witnesses are getting enough corroboration by the deposition, given by P.W. 5, Dr. N.K. Lal, who has carried out postmortem of the deceased. There is head injury caused by the appellant accused. Moreover, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are injured eye witnesses. Moreover, prayer for suspension of sentence was earlier rejected by this Court and there is no change in the circumstance, except lapse of time.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the appellant is of advance age of 70 years and there are case and counter case against the appellant and victims.

(3.)IT has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khilari v. State of U.P and another reported in AIR 2008 S.C. 1882 especially in . paragraph 10, which reads as under:
"10. In Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad and Anr. [2005 (7) S.C.C. 326] it was, inter alia, observed as follows: "7. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order shows complete nonapplication of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a mater of course. 8.There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are : 1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; 2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; 3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non application of mind as was noted by this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. {(2002) 3 S.C.C. 598}; Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. {(2001)6 SCC 338)} and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Anr. [JT 2004 (3) SC 442]."
(Emphasis supplied)