Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The appellant has preferred the present application under Section 389 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. for suspension of conviction during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant had been convicted by the Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2010 under Sections 452/34 I.P.C. and under Section 307/34 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for the offence punishable under Section 452/34 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.10,000/-. He was also sentenced to undergo three years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.50,000/-. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The appeal was admitted on 21.07.2010 and the sentence was suspended during the pendency of the appeal on terms. The appeal is pending disposal in due course.

2. Now, the appellant seeks suspension of the conviction itself on the ground that the appellant enjoys a high reputation in the political sphere; he was elected Councilor in the year 1997 and thereafter in 2002; he was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) in 2003 and; was further elected as M.L.A. in the year 2008. He submits that he wants to contest the upcoming elections in Delhi, which would not be possible unless his conviction is stayed, on account of the bar imposed under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

3. Notice was issued in the present application on 09.12.2014, which was accepted by Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned APP. On 22.12.2014, it was informed by the learned APP that the appellant was previously involved in ten other cases. The details of the said cases were furnished to the appellant’s counsel. The appellant filed an affidavit dated 05.01.2015 in Court, which was taken on record. In the affidavit, the appellant has disclosed that he had been acquitted in nine out of ten cases, and the tenth case relating to F.I.R. No.969/2003, P.S. Tilak Nagar is the one in question, pending consideration in appeal.

4. The submission of Mr. Ajay Burman, learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has deep roots in the society and that he belongs to a respectable family. He submits that he was falsely involved and implicated in the present case on account of political rivalry by the followers of the defeated candidate, as the appellant had been elected M.L.A. some time before the alleged incident of 11.12.2003.

5. Mr. Burman submits that at the time of the alleged incident, he received information on his Mobile Phone No. 9818822281, that workers of the rival political party had forcibly entered his house and attacked the same. Mr. Burman submits that the appellant had, in turn, made a call to PW-16, i.e. S.H.O., P.S.- Tilak Nagar, informing him of the said development. The appellant, at that time, was holding a meeting with the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M.C.D.) at the office of the M.C.D. (West District) in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. It is for this reason that the appellant was kept in Column No.2, and was not considered as the main accused in the charge-sheet.

6. Mr. Burman submits that it had been established upon examination of the call detail record of the aforesaid mobile phone number that the location of the appellant was near the office of the M.C.D. (West District), Rajouri Garden at the relevant time. He submits that at the stage of consideration of the anticipatory bail application, it had been verified by the Police, upon examination of the call detail record, that the appellant was not present at the place of the incident.

7. Mr. Burman submits that several witnesses who could prove the alibi of the appellant, namely Sh. S.K. Jain, Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bajaj & Sh. D.C. Bansal of M.C.D., were not produced by the prosecution. Mr. Burman claims that the said witnesses – and one Sh. Subodh Kumar, had told the Police during investigation that the appellant was present in the M.C.D. office at the time of the incident. Though th