IA ORDER

1. RULE

. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. By way of the present application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant - accused is seeking suspension of sentence and release on regular bail during pendency of the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.01.2026 passed in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2021 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Dholka, whereby, the present applicant - accused was sentenced to the following term:

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Soeb Bhoharia for learned advocate Mr. Valimohammed Pathan for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent State.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mr. Soeb Bhoharia for the applicant submits thatthere is a patent illegality in the impugned judgment and order and as per the charge framed against the applicant it is stated that the co-accused and the applicant were found in a room as well as in a rickshaw no. GJ-01-DU-5014 with around 30 kgs of beef but if the facts as alleged in the FIR are perused, it is stated that a secret information was received that the applicant was slaughtering a calf at his house and he was to go to dispose the same and a raid was arranged and while the police went for the raid, they found a CNG rickshaw and the co-accused fled away from the scene of offence thereafter, they went into the house of the applicant and found 30 kgs of beef. The other parts of the calf were found in the CNG rickshaw GJ-01-DU-5014. Learned advocate submits that as per the Gujarat Animal Preservation Rules, 1967, the Police Officer who has made a seizure should immediately send the samples of the suspected beef to the FSL but in this case the muddamal has not been sent to the FSL. The report of the Scientific Officer of the mobile investigation van has been produced on record in the deposition of one witness but no Scientific Officer or FSL Officer has been examined as witness before the learned Trial Court. Hence, the manner and method in which the samples were taken as also sent to FSL and the report of FSL has been produced on record. Learned advocate submits that the witnesses are mainly the police witnesses and there are major omissions and contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses who do not depose as to the procedure that was undertaken at the time of the raid and thereafter, the procedure that was undertaken for verifying the samples and sending the same to the FSL. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant has been sentenced for a fixed period and 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 application may be allowed and the applicant be enlarged on bail pending hearing and final disposal of the captioned Criminal Appeal.

5. Learned APP for the respondent – State has strongly objected to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant and has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the present applicant as he has been involved in a very serious offence, however, necessary orders may be passed in the interest of justice.

6. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order and the paper book produced on record by the learned advocate for the applicant as also considering the arguments of learned advocate for the applicant as also the learned APP, the charge has been framed against the accused at Exh. 3 stating that 30 kg