D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) THE instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellants under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of the sentence during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal. All the three Appellants were convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ - with default stipulation.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that after 18 years of protracted trial the Appellants were convicted and they were in custody for two years during trial. After the judgment of the conviction was recorded and sentence was awarded on 13.10.2010 they were taken into custody and since then they are in jail. In that manner, they have served out almost half of the sentence. On the point of merit, learned Counsel submitted that the conviction of the Appellants is based upon the statement of P.W. 8 and P.W. 11. It is stated that the witnesses had identified the Appellant in the Test Identification Parade but P.W. 8 turned hostile whereas the learned Counsel submitted that the statement of P.W. 11, who claimed to identify the Appellants, was never recorded by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation and therefore the Appellants were denied to cross -examine and to take contradiction of the statement of P.W. 11, who straightaway appeared before the Trial Court without his evidence being recorded by the Investigating Officer. Heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State. In the facts and circumstances, the Appellants (1) Sheikh Alam @ Sk. Alam (2) Lalit Mahto & (3) Kirtan Rai are directed to be released, during the pendency of this Cr. Appeal, on executing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/ - (Rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri Sachidra Kumar Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 403 of 1994, arising out of Baghamara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No. 371 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. No. 4090 of 1992 with the conditions that the bailers would be their near relatives and they would co -operate in disposal of this Criminal Appeal, failing to which appropriate order shall be passed vacating the order of their ad interim bail.
(3.) I .A. No. 574 of 2011 stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1004 of 2010;