The court emphasized that prior bail during trial does not justify suspension of sentence post-conviction, especially when substantial evidence supports the conviction.

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO)

1. By way of the present application under Section 430 of the BNSS , the applicant - accused is seeking suspension of sentence and release on regular bail during the pendency of the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 03.09.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat, whereby, the present applicant - accused was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, one month simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC .

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shakeel Quereshi for the applicant as well learned APP Mr. L. B . Dabhi for the respondent – State.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shakeel Quereshi for the applicant submits that looking to the facts of the present case, there is no reliable evidence of the sole eye witness, so called Gopalbhai which is a concocted evidence and in fact, after a long period of more than 17 years, an application under Section 311 was filed vide Exh. 38 calling upon one Valjibhai @ Gopal Bharwad to be a witness and the application was allowed and the evidence of the witness was recorded and the learned Trial Court has convicted the applicant. That the applicant was on bail from the year 2001 and the applicant has not misused his liberty and looking to the fact that the applicant has good prima facie case and there are all chances to succeed in the present appeal, the application for suspension of sentence may be allowed. That the applicant has paid the amount of fine and learned advocate has urged this Court to allow the application and suspend the sentence of the applicant.

4. Learned APP Mr. L. B . Dabhi for the respondent – State has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 21.01.2001 and the case of the applicant could be committed to the Court of Sessions only in the year 2014 and the same was registered as Sessions Case No. 120/2014. That the other co-accused – Nareshbhai Gangaram Khandhal was tried vide Sessions Case No. 94/2010 and as per the case of the prosecution, the applicant along with the other co-accused – Kanubhai Ghusabhai Ahir and Nareshbhai Gangaram Khandhal assaulted the deceased – Mukeshbhai Valjibhai B araiya while he was along with his friend – Gopalbhai and the co- accused caught hold of the deceased, whereas, the present applicant gave injuries with a knife to the deceased. Gopalbhai – a friend of the deceased was a witness and even in the complaint filed by the complainant – Mansukhbhai Valjibhai B araiya who is the brother the deceased, he has stated that Gopalbhai was present at the time of the incident and the Investigating Officer had tried to look for Gopalbhai but he could not be found and ultimately after a long time, he was found and has been examined before the learned Trial Court. That even otherwise, there is evidence that the knife that was used to assault the deceased was recovered from the present applicant and the clothes worn by the applicant, at the time of incident, were also seized and sent to FSL and the knife that was recovered had blood stains which were of the blood group of the deceased. Moreover, the clothes of the applicant which were grey pant and greyish colour half sleeve shirt also had blood stains on them. In the FSL Report, blood stains has been found on the clothes of the accused and there is no explanation about the same in the further statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure . That the prosecution has proved the case against the applicant beyond reasonable doubts and learned APP has urged this Court to reject the application of