Suspension of sentence requires strong grounds demonstrating a fair chance of acquittal; mere incarceration duration does not suffice for bail.

ORDER :

P. M. RAVAL, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. By way of this application under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Nayay Sanhita 2023, the applicant – Org. Accused seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.05.2021 by the learned Special (Atrocity) and 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Banskantha at Palanpur in Special ( Atrocity) Case No.27/2017.

3. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present applicant - convict has been held guilty for the commission of offences as stated hereinbelow :

The Ld. Special Judge has directed the Applicant to undergo all the sentences concurrently and also gave benefit of set off in respect of imprisonment suffered as under trial prisoner.

4. Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwalla with Ld. Advocate Z.F Barda would submit that:-

4.1 That vide order dated 29.09.2024, one co-accused namely Vishnubhai Mafabhai Rabari whose application for suspension of sentence was allowed by this Court, hence, the present Applicant – Accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail pending the hearing of the appeal.

4.2 That the Applicant being also similarly situated and having undergone approximately eight years in judicial custody has once again filed the Application seeking for suspension of sentence.

4.3 That the Applicant was arrested on 18.08.2017, since then he is in jail, moreover, he is only 39 years old and if not granted bail, pending the final outcome of the Appeal, the entire life of the Applicant will be ruined and also the life of his family members would be adversely affected.

4.4 The Appeal has been admitted by this Court in the year 2021 and despite the Applicant having undergone eight years in judicial custody the Criminal Appeal has not been taken up for hearing. Under such circumstances, also the present Application for suspension of sentence should be allowed.

4.5 That though the Applicant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased while he was in his custody, the evidence which has come on record clearly suggests of the fact that the Applicant has only given slaps to the deceased and thereafter, the custody of the deceased was taken away by the Accused Nos. 1 to 8 and it is the case of the prosecution and the driver who was the witness who was driving the car when the deceased was taken away by the accused Nos. 1 to 8 along with them that the deceased walked and sat inside the car by himself and there was no injuries sustained by the deceased and thus argued that when the deceased was ultimately succumbed to injury when he was in the custody of the accused Nos. 1 to 8. Thus, the driver of the car was unable to explain nor the prosecution explain beyond reasonable doubt as to how the deceased succumbed while the accused was in the custody of Accused Nos. 1 to 8. When the Accused Nos. 1 to 8 were enlarged on bail, the Applicant also deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4.6 Ld. Senior Counsel has also drawn attention of the Court towards the deposition of Sikandarkhan Nijamkhan Bhati at Exh. 123 and has argued that he has only seen the present Applicant slapping the deceased and there were some signs of injury on his face, however, no injuries were seen on his body and the injury on