***

Present application(s) i.e. CRM-22078-2026 in CRA-D-497-2026 & CRM-26894-2026 in CRA-D-919-2026 have been filed by the applicant(s)- appellant(s) namely Naveen @ Bhola and Praveen, respectively, seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal(s).

Learned counsel for the applicant(s)-appellant(s) contends that the incident in question occurred on 21.02.2020 wherein an injury was sustained by deceased Guddu. A surgery was conducted on him and he was thereafter discharged by Safdarjung Hospital on 28.02.2020. The condition of the deceased Guddu was mentioned as stable in the discharge summary. The deceased thereafter left for his village in Bihar and he later died on 06.04.2020 i.e. after more than one month of discharge from the Safdarjung hospital. The cause of death was Septicemia, toxemia and shock. He contends that the aforesaid cause of death is thus not directly relatable to the act committed by the appellants but on account of lack of preventive care and precautionary measures by the deceased himself. The death is thus not an immediate result of the injury that was caused. He further draws attention of this Court to the deposition of PW-8 Tinku Kumar son of Khoka Singh, brother of the deceased, who specifically said that after his brother returned home, he re-engaged in agricultural activities and resumed consumption of liquor thus, affecting his recovery and the resultant Septicemia.

Referring to the above, learned counsel for the applicant(s)- appellant(s) contends that there would be arguable issues in the present case as to whether the applicants-appellants can be connected with and convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC or not. Learned counsel for the applicant(s)- appellants(s) has placed on record custody certificate dated 03.08.2026, as per which applicant – Naveen @ Bhola has undergone total sentence of 09 months and 29 days whereas applicant – Praveen has undergone total sentence of 01 year 09 months and 21 days. Learned counsel submits that the applicant(s) – appellant(s) have some criminal antecedents.

Learned counsel further contends that the applicant(s)-appellant(s) may be put to strict conditions for suspension of sentence. He submits that the applicant(s) shall subject themselves to any condition and not indulge in any other criminal conduct and in an event, if any other complaint of cognizable/non- cognizable offence is received against them, the order granting suspension of sentence to them may be cancelled. He further contends that the applicants shall also voluntary offer community service in Civil Hospital where they will not only attend to the patients but also carry out all other such works as may be so assigned or directed to be done by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurugram.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the period of custody undergone by the appellants is in lower side. He however does not dispute that death took place after more than a month of discharge and the cause of death was Septicemia. It is also not disputed that condition of deceased was stable when he was discharged. The deposition of PW-8 Tinku Kumar is also not disputed.

After hearing counsel for the applicant(s)-appellant(s) and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances as also the arguable issues that arise in the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant applications for suspension of sentence subject to following conditions:-

i) That the applicant(s)-appellant(s) shall furnish heavy security and shall furnish a surety each to the satisfaction of concerned Illaqa Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate.

ii) That the applicant(s)-appellant(s) shall submit an affidavit before the Illaqa Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate that they shall not indulge in any other criminal offence and that in the event of their involvement or nomination in any other criminal case, the order granting suspension of sentence