IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2793 of 2025 ==========================================================

IMRANBHAI HUSENBHAI DIWAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR V B MALIK(5071) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 16/03/2026

IA ORDER

1] RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 – State.

2] This application is filed by the applicant for suspension of sentence in connection with the conviction recorded vide judgment and order dated 29-09-2025 by the learned 7^th Additional Sessions Judge, Karjan @ Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 02 of 2021, whereby, the applicant was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five (05) years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one (01) month for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC.

3] Heard learned advocate Mr. V.B.Malik for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Megha Chitaliya for the respondent No. 1 – State.

4] Learned advocate for the applicant–accused submits that the applicant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara and sentenced to a maximum period of five years, out of which the applicant has undergone imprisonment for six months and twenty-six days. As regards the evidence, it is submitted that, as per the prosecution case, three to four persons sustained injuries in a vehicular accident; however, there are no eye-witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution. The injured witnesses have turned hostile and, even during cross-examination, they have not supported the prosecution case. In fact, there is no incriminating evidence on record, and even the person traveling in the vehicle has not supported the prosecution case and has stated that the incident occurred due to a tyre burst. The applicant has a good case on merits and as the present appeal is not likely to be heard in near future and hearing of the same would take some long time and hence, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period with hardened criminals. The applicant has a good case on merits and hence, the order of the sentence may be suspended and the applicant may be released on regular bail on appropriate terms and condition.

5] Learned APP for the State has objected to the present application to grant suspension of sentence and has submitted that the order of sentence is just and proper and no interference is required in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, present application may be rejected.

6] On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and considering the submissions of the learned advocate for the applicant, the arguments of learned advocate for the applicant deserves consideration as the applicant is sentenced for a fixed period and the sentence is for a fix period of five (05) years and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, the present application for suspension of sentence can be considered in view of the decision rendered in case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 4 SCC

421, wherein, it has been held that when the sentence is for a fixed period, the appellate Court finds that due to practical reasons such appeal cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate Court must bestow special concern in the matters of suspending the sentence. And without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the arguments of the learned advocate for the applicant, requires consideration and accordingly, is allowed. The execution of the sentence in the judgment and order date