K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The appellants in the Criminal Appeals filed the present applications under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to suspend the execution of the sentence passed against them in Sessions Case No.187 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Session, Kottayam.

2. Forty accused persons were tried before the Court below for the Offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 363, 365, 366(A), 368, 372,373,376,376(2)(g) read with Section 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.3 in the charge sheet (Dharmarajan) absconded while on bail and the case against him was split up. The case against Dharmarajan was separately tried as Sessions Case No.241 of 2001.

3. The trial court acquitted accused Nos. 23, 26, 32 and 36. The case against accused No.40 abated. The trial court convicted the rest of the accused in S.C.No.187 of 1999 and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for terms ranging from four years to thirteen years and also fine. The trial court in S.C.No.241 of 2001 found the accused (Dharmarajan) guilty and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

4. The details regarding the rank and name of the accused, conviction and sentence in S.C.No.187 of 1999 (in respect of the applicants) are shown below:

5. Challenging the conviction and sentence in S.C.No.187 of 1999, the accused persons filed Criminal Appeals before this Court. Dharmarajan filed Crl.A.No.877 of 2002 challenging the conviction and sentence in S.C.No.241 of 2001. All the Criminal Appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as per the judgment dated 20th January 2005. This Court acquitted the accused in S.C.No.187 of 1999 and reduced the sentence imposed on Dharmarajan.

6. The State filed Criminal Appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and remanded the cases to the High Court for fresh disposal. The Supreme Court held thus:

“After hearing learned senior counsel appearing for the parties, we find a lot of force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State of Kerala. By the impugned common judgment, the High Court has acquitted the 35 respondents who had been convicted in Sessions Case No.187 of 1999 only on the basis of evidence led in Sessions Case No.241 of 2001 after arriving at a finding that the prosecutrix may not have been an unwilling partner to the sexual intercourse with the accused and the High Court does not appear to have considered the evidence in Sessions Case No.187 of 1999. What the High Court has failed to appreciate is that a Prosecutrix may be a willing partner in an intercourse with the one accused in Sessions Case No.241 of 2001, but she may not be a willing partner in intercourse with the 35 other accused in Sessions Case No.187 of 1999. Whether she consented to an intercourse will ultimately depend on the facts of each case. The High Court to have considered the facts of each case and decided the appeals in accordance with law and in the absence of such consideration by the High Court, it will not be proper for us to decide on the culpability of each of the respondents-accused in these appeals. We, therefore, set aside the impugned common judgment of the High Court and remand the matters back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law”.

7. The Supreme Court noticed that while allowing the Criminal Appeals filed by the accused, the High Court had discharged the bail bonds executed by the accused. The Supreme Court issued the following directions in the judgment:

“We find that the High Court, while allowing the appeals of the respondents and acquitting them, has discharged the bail bonds which were executed pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondents during the pendency of the appeals. Since the bail bonds stand discharged, it will be open for the respondents to make fresh prayers for bail before the High