( 1 ) RULE. Ms. Pandit, learned A. P. P. , for respondent-State. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi, learned Advocate for the applicant and Ms. Pandit, learned A. P. P. , for the respondent-State. ( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who has taken me through the evidence and the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge. The applicant-Dinesh was not on bail pending trial as he was facing charge of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, the applicant has been held guilty of the charge of offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) MR. TRIVEDI has attempted to convince the Court that there is no scope for prosecution even to argue that the applicant-appellant can be held responsible for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The quantum of punishment imposed by the learned trial Judge apparently looks severe punishment. It is also submitted that without entering into the merits, the applicant-appellant has fairly arguable case qua the quantum of punishment imposed by the learned trial Judge and considering the socio-economic background of the accused and the fact that both the children of the applicant-Dinesh are mentally challenged, one is suffering from epilepsy and second one is also mentally retarded; perhaps that child may be suffering from schizophrenia. The learned trial Judge in the operative part of the impugned judgment and order has observed and recorded his satisfaction about the physical and mental condition of both the children. ( 5 ) IT is also submitted by Mr. Trivedi that the incident had occurred at a place, the agriculture field, which even as per the Investigating Officer was occupied by the accused persons and there are speaking circumstances to show that land is cultivated and standing crop was there. When the applicant has fairly arguable case and the substantive charge against the applicant is that he had allegedly caught hold of the injured who sustained grievous hurt on his head and it is not the say of prosecution that the present applicant was the person responsible in inflicting the blow which ultimately proved fatal, the applicant should be released on bail. ( 6 ) IT is true that normally the cases in which the accused are enjoying bail pending trial, obviously, shall have to be treated differently compared to the cases dealing with the bail application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure qua the accused persons who have been refused bail pending trial. But when the accused has been held responsible for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and the case falls in the category of case of fixed period or short sentence cases then the Court can exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant in such peculiar social circumstances and other liabilities, because ultimately if the Court at the end of appeal finds that the applicant had a right to private defence and was entitled at least to rush to rescue the father-Dahyabhai, original accused No. 1, then the period spent in prison by him is likely to result into serious prejudice not only to the applicant but also to the mentally challenged two children who are aged about 9 and 11 years respectively. ( 7 ) THE order of bail is a discretionary order and while considering the bail plea, the Court should, alongwith other circumstance, consider that if the bail is granted to the applicant, it would not take a wrong signal to the society. I am of the firm view that in this particular case, the order of bail would not take any wrong signal to the society and therefore the Court is inclined to grant the bail to the applicant-accused. ( 8 ) HAVING considered the totality and facts emerging from the record, application deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the main criminal appeal, the substantive sentence imposed by the trial Court is placed under suspension and the applicant-accused is hereby ordered to be enlarged on bail on applicant furnishing Solvent Surety of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with Personal Bond of the like amount and on usual terms and conditions. Over and above the usual conditions the applicant shall abide by the following conditions that the applicant: shall not leave the territory limits of the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of this Court. shall not involve themselves in such or similar type of offence. Over and above the usual conditions the applicant shall abide by the following conditions that the applicant: shall not leave the territory limits of the State of Gujarat without the prior permission of this Court. shall not involve themselves in such or similar type of offence. shall not enter into the disputed field unless he is otherwise authorised or empowered to enter by the orders of the Competent Court or the owner of the property under a written agreement. Bail before the trial Court. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.