1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues involved in all the three appeals are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are disposed of by this common order.

3. These appeals filed by the de - facto complainant arise from the orders passed by the High Court of Jharkhand dated 7-5-2025 in (i) I.A. No.4953/2025 filed in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2024, (ii) I.A. No.7257 of 2025 filed in Criminal Appeal No.191 of 2024 and (iii) I.A. No. 4952 of 2025 filed, in Criminal Appeal No.189 of 2024 respectively, by which the applications filed by the Respondents viz. Rajesh Rai, Vicky Rai and Sukhdeo Rai (convicts) respectively seeking suspension of the substance order of sentence of life imprisonment pending final disposal of their respective Criminal Appeals before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi came to be allowed.

4. The High Court ordered release of all the above - named accused (convicts) on bail pending the final disposal of their respective Criminal Appeals.

5. We take notice of the fact that the convicts along with other co - accused were put to trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Giridih, Jharkhand in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2021, arising out of Bengabad Police Station Case No.187/2020 for the offence punishable under S.147, S.148, S.149, S.325, S.342 and S.302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") respectively.

6. At the end of the trial, all the above - named three accused were held guilty of the alleged offence and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each.

7. The above - named accused persons, being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, went in appeal before the High Court. Their appeals have been admitted.

8. In their respective appeals, they preferred an application under S.389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking suspension of the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment.

9. The High Court allowed the said applications.

10. In such circumstances, referred to above, it is the de - facto complainant who is here before us by way of these appeals.

11. We take notice of the fact that the State of Jharkhand although served with the notice issued by this Court yet has chosen not to remain present before this Court and make good its stance in the present appeals. This is something very disturbing and unfortunate because we are dealing with a very serious matter wherein the High Court has by a cryptic order suspended the substantive order of life imprisonment.

12. The impugned order passed in I.A. No.4953/2025 filed in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2024, being very short the same reads thus: -
I.A. No.4953/2025
"Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, the learned A.P.P. for the State.
This application has been preferred by the appellant for grant of bail during the pendency of this appeal.
The appellant has been convicted for the offences under S.147, S.148, S.342/149, 325/149, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under S.302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been alleged that while the brother of the informant was returning to his village along with one Inderlal Verma, they were accosted by several named and unnamed persons who had committed assault upon them with lathi, danda, rod and pistol, which resulted in death of the brother of the informant.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.
It has further been submitted that the injured eye - witness PW - 5 has taken the name of several accused persons including the present appellant apart from 20-25 unknown persons who are said to have committed assault upon the brother of the informant. The learned counsel therefore submits that the allegations being general and omnibus in nature the appellant deserves to be released on bail.
The lear