Judgment ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the judgment and order impugned of the courts below as well as the record of the trial court. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in EX. P/1, the State of Account, it does not bear the signatures of the petitioner. Admit. Issue notice. Mr. JPS Chaudhary, learned public Prosecutor and Mr. Dron Kaushik appearing for the complainant, accepts notice. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on the application for suspension of sentence. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I think is just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the bail application filed under Section 397 (1) Cr. P. C. is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, district Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated 5-4-2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 65/2004 against applicant-petitioner Ram Nath S/o Farsha Ran shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid revision petition, 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 18-7-2006 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.