IA JUDGMENT

1. RULE. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. By way of filing the present application under the provisions of Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicants–convicts (i.e. the original accused) seek suspension of sentence imposed upon them vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan at Radhanpur, in Sessions Case No.13 of 2018.

3. By the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the applicants-accused came to be held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, the applicants-accused Nos.1 to 3 have been ordered to undergo sentence as under : -

4. Learned APP appearing for the respondent - State has tendered the jail remarks dated 08.06.2026 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent, Ahmedabad Central Jail, Ahmedabad. The same is ordered to be taken on record. It appears from the jail remarks that the applicants-convicts have already undergone 03 months and 01 day of incarceration as on date out of the total sentence of five years and they were on bail during the trial and have also deposited the fine imposed by the trial Court. The appeal has been admitted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.04.2026.

5. At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the present applicants-convicts has submitted that the applicants were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 & 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, however, at the end of the trial, after appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the applicants-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 & 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and convicted them only for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned advocate has submitted that after appreciating the entire evidence on record, the trial Court was of the opinion that the applicants-accused had not committed the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 & 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act; however, considering the injury sustained by the complainant, the applicants-accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. Relying upon the deposition of the Medical Officer along with the Medical Certificate, learned advocate has submitted that considering the evidence as it is, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 326 is made out. Learned advocate has submitted that the trial Court has without appreciating the entire evidence in its entirety and in its true perspective, convicted the applicants-accused for the alleged offence and thought it fit to impose a fixed term of sentence of simple imprisonment for five years along with the fine. Learned advocate appearing for the applicants-convicts has further submitted that the applicants were on bail during the trial. He has, therefore, urged that the applicants-convicts have atleast an arguable case for suspension of sentence.

6. Learned advocate for the applicants, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999 (4) SCC 421, has urged that since the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the applicants-accused for a fixed term of simple imprisonment for five years along with the fine, and since there are very remote chances of the hearing of the appeal in the near future, the present application may be allowed and the applicants-convicts may be released on bail by suspending their sentence, during the pendency and hearing of the appeal.

7. Vehemently oppos