The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to suspend sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of an appeal, based on the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the appellant.

JUDGMENT

1. Notice has been served on respondent-complainant, however, no one has appeared on his behalf.

2. The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Leelu Ram S/o Sohan Lal, who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities Cases), Churu in Sessions Case No.47/2012.

all sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentence, as per which, the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents.

5. The appellant was on bail during the course of trial. The sentences awarded to the co-convict Om Prakash have been suspended by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2022 observing as below:-

"It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence; the circumstance pitted against the petitioner is that the deceased was seen last in the company of the appellant-applicant; there is no other corroborative piece of evidence to support or substantiate the allegation of murder. Learned counsel further submits that the testimony of Ram Kumar (P.W.3) is not credible enough to sustain the conviction. He further submits that the appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him; the hearing of the appeal would likely to consume time and there is strong and arguable case in favour of the appellant-applicant. Thus, learned counsel representing the appellant, sought acceptance of the application for suspension of sentences craving indulgence of bail to the appellant, during pendency of the appeal.

In this background and having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for suspending the sentences awarded to the accused appellant during the pendency of the appeal."

6. The case of the present appellant is not distinguishable in any manner from that of the co-convict Om Prakash and hence he too deserves to be released on bail.

7. accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities Cases), Churu vide judgment dated 11.10.2021 in Sessions Case No.47/2012 against the appellant- applicant Leelu Ram S/o Sohan Lal, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 28.06.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

8. The l