IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO.

2 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1677 of 2017 ==========================================================

IRFAN @ SONU ABBASBHAI KOCHALIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS NAMRATA H DAVE(10172) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 15/10/2025

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. We have heard Ms.Namrata Dave, learned advocate and Mr.Aditya Jadeja, learned APP for the respective parties.

3. By way of this application under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, applicant – Irfan @ Sonu Abbasbhai Kochaliya, seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The present appeal and the application for suspension of sentence arise from the judgment dated 11.10.2017 and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.107 of 2013, whereby, the applicant herein was convicted and sentenced as under:

Section Imprisonment Fine In default S.302 of IPC Life Rs.5000/- Imprisonment for Imprisonment 6 months S.120B of IPC Life Rs.1000/- Imprisonment for Imprisonment 30 days

5. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that the deceased Karim had abducted the sister of the accused and keeping grudge in mind, the accused killed the deceased Karim by stabbing him multiple time with the knives. On the basis of the complaint and filing of the chargesheet, the accused was put on trial and at the end, the Trial Court found guilty them for the offence of murder.

6. Learned advocate Ms.Namrata Dave, appearing on behalf of the applicant while praying for suspension of sentence contended that, the incarceration period is more than 11 years and the co- accused A2 Irfan Dado has been considered by this Court and thus, in view of the long incarceration, and applying the principle of parity, the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail may be considered.

7. On the other hand, Mr.Aditya Jadeja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court and contended that the Court may fix the appeal for final hearing, but having regard to the seriousness of the offence and in absence of exceptional circumstances, this is not a fit case to grant discretionary relief.

8. Issue arises as to whether the applicant has made out a case for suspension of sentence?

9. We have carefully examined the case records and considered the submissions made at the bar. It is no doubt true that as on date, the applicant A1 has served 11 years and 5 months of his sentence. The role attributed to the present applicant and the co- accused who has been granted bail are seem to be at par. Thus, without much discussions on merits of the case, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicant convict for the purpose of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

10. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. The sentence of the applicant awarded vide judgment dated 11.10.2017 by the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.107 of 2013 is suspended during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal and the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to condition that he will not leave India without prior permission of this Court and shall appear before this court as and when appeal is taken for final he