Judgment ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of applicant-appellant Kaluram. Perused the judgment and order impugned and record of the trial court. ( 2 ) THE first bail application seeking suspension of sentence was dismissed as it was not pressed by the counsel for the applicant-appellant. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the statement of PW-12 Dr. Dharamchand Baradiya who examined injured Sheraram. The allegation against the present applicant is that he inflicted injury no. 1 to injured Sheraram. The injury No. 1 is 7x1xbone deep which has not resulted in any fracture. According to Doctor, neither there is any fracture of injury No. 1 nor it is dangerous to life. ( 3 ) HAVING considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that sentence awarded to the other applicants have already been suspended, I think it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant-applicant. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the bail application filed under Sec. 389 cr. P. C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Nagaur vide judgment dt. 03. 2. 2006 in sessions case No. 38/2005 against applicant -appellant Kaluram S/o ummedaram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before this court on 11/7/2006 and whenever ordered to do so with the incorporation in the bond that as and when he will shift his place of residence, he will intimate to this Court and his lawyer about his new place of residence.