( 1. ) RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.J.K.Shah, learned APP for the State waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent State.

( 2. ) THIS is an Application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the accused-applicant, praying for suspension of the substantive order of sentence imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (camp at Idar), dated 21st May 2011 passed in Sessions Case No.159/2007, whereby the Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the accused-applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 395, 342, 506(2) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial Court, while convicting the accused-applicant for the offences punishable –

(a) under Section 395 IPC, has ordered the accused-applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000=00 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one year.

(b) under Section 397 IPC, has ordered the accused applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years.

(c) under Section 342 IPC, has ordered the accused applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year with fine of Rs.1,000=00 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month.

(d) under Section 120B IPC, has ordered the accused applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000=00 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one years.

(e) under Section 506(2) IPC, has ordered the accused applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year with fine of Rs.1,000=00 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month.

( 3. ) ALL the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The accused-applicant was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Sections 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act.

( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the accused-applicant would submit that the accused-applicant has challenged the judgment and order of conviction by filing a substantive appeal raising manifold grounds of challenge. He would further submit that the sentence imposed for all offences is for a fixed period and the maximum sentence which the accused-applicant has to undergo is rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years. He would further submit that pending the trial the accused-applicant was on bail and during the period of bail, the accused-applicant has not abused the process. He would further submit that the appeal would take a considerable long time before it is taken up for hearing and if the substantive period of sentence is not suspended and the accused-applicant is not released on bail, then the valuable right of appeal would get defeated. He would further submit that it takes a considerable long time before the appeals are taken up for final hearing in this High Court and by the time the appeal would be taken up for final hearing, practically 80 to 90 percent of the sentence period would be over. He would further submit that, therefore, in the interest of justice and with a view to protect the valuable right of appeal as provided by the Code, the accused-applicant should be released on bail pending the final disposal of the appeal, subject to terms and conditions.

I have given my anxious thoughts and considerations to the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the accused-applicant. It is true that the sentence which has been imposed by the trial Court is for a fixed period and the maximum sentence is 7 years. It is also true that pending the trial, the accused-applicant was on bail and has not misused the liberty granted to him. It is also true that the appeal would take a considerable long time before it is taken up for final hearing. However, all these aspects cannot be the sole consideration for suspending the substantive order of sentence once the trial Court has held the accused-applicant