JUDGMENT 1. - This second application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.RC. has been filed on behalf of applicant - Appellant Smt. Urmila whose first similar application was rejected vide order dated 12.4.2004. 2. Her learned counsel has contended that she was perhaps declined suspension of sentence earlier keeping in view the circumstance mentioned in the judgment that she and co-accused Hanuman were found carrying illicit arms in their possession on the date of pronouncement of the judgment in this case but the FIR No. 313/03 RS. Kotwali Jhunjhunu reveals that it was only co-accused Hanuman who was found in possession of the country made pistol with three live cartridges without a valid license and not the present petitioner. He has also submitted that she is a woman who is in jail with an infant of less than 2 years of age in her lap since 12.12.2003 i.e. the date of judgment. She was on bail during trial and there is no allegation against her that she ever misused the liberty of bail. No specific injury to Nekiram has been attributed to her. She has been held guilty for the alleged offences with the application of Section 149 IPC. It is just possible that the court may after hearing the appeal come to the conclusion that lesser offence than the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out for which she may even be released on probation or may be released on the sentence of about 8 months already undergone by her. Unlike co-accused Hanuman and others, she was not an accused in the case pertaining to murder of Karan Singh. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have both vehemently opposed the application. They have submitted that the petitioner actively participated in inflicting injuries to Nekiram who brought and handed over the iron rod to co-accused. But, they could not controvert the ' contention of the learned counsel that unlike co-accused Hanuman, she was not found in possession of any illicit arm. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the relevant record. 5. But, they could not controvert the ' contention of the learned counsel that unlike co-accused Hanuman, she was not found in possession of any illicit arm. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the relevant record. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this 1 stage, but keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that she is a woman and has an in fact of less than 2 years of age in her lap in the jail and unlike co-accused Hanuman, she was not found in possession of any illicit fire arm, I deem it just and proper to suspend her sentence.In the result, the application for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is directed that the sentence awarded to applicant Smt. Urmila wife of Khushiram shall remain suspended during the pendency of her criminal appeal provided, she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for her appearance before this Court on 23.8.2004 and thereafter on all dates of hearing unless otherwise directed.Application allowed-Sentence suspended with conditions. *******