(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. Rule.
Learned APP Mr. Pandya waives service of Rule.
2. The present application for suspension of sentence and regular bail is preferred by the applicant - original accused No.3.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as learned APP for the State and we have also considered the original records. Since the matter was through legal aid, learned counsel for the applicant - appellant had no copy of evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant - appellant has submitted that she is unable to produce the copy of the evidence and other relevant documents.
4. It prima facie appears that the presence of the applicant is established on account of the blood stain found on the shawl, which was at the relevant point of time with the applicant and which has been recovered by the police. However, the allegation in the complaint is that the applicant appellant had given fist blows. Further, there was no charge for the offence under section 34, but there was charge of only section 114 of the IPC. Under these circumstances, it prima facie appears that the punishment for the offence under section 114, in absence of any charge under section 34, may not be same. The applicant, by now, had already undergone imprisonment for about four years, whereas, as per section 115, it should be seven years.
5. Under these circumstances, we find that it is a case for suspension of sentence and release the applicant on bail. Hence, following order.
The sentence imposed upon the applicant appellant (original accused No.3) is suspended and he be released on regular bail on the following conditions:-
(a) He shall furnish bail bond of Rs.10,000/- and one solvent surety of the like amount.
(b) He shall not misuse his liberty.
(c) He shall surrender his passport, if any.
6. The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) shekhar* Top