JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition while challenging the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali whereby an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for suspension of sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court has been decided while imposing a condition that he shall deposit a fine of Rs. 3,12,000/- within a period of ten days and also submit bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2014 to the extent of imposing the condition of depositing the amount of fine. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') vide judgment and order dated 1.4.2013 and he was sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment and was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 3,12,000/-, in default of which, he will further undergo sentence for two months' simple imprisonment. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment passed by the learned trial court dated 1.4.2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court'). Along with the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence awarded by the learned trial court during the pendency of the appeal. The appellate court decided the application for suspension of sentence vide impugned order dated 29.10.2014 and ordered that the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court is suspended subject to the condition that the petitioner may deposit the amount of fine within a period of ten days. 4. Being aggrieved with the said condition of depositing fine, the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned appellate court has illegally imposed the condition of depositing amount of fine while suspending the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal. It is further contended that imposing of such condition tantamounts to deprive the petitioner from his release on bail during the pendency of appeal. It is also contended that imposition of such condition would amount to refusal of suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. 6. It is further contended that imposing of such condition tantamounts to deprive the petitioner from his release on bail during the pendency of appeal. It is also contended that imposition of such condition would amount to refusal of suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. 6. In support of above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Amarveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 414 . 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court is not suffering from any illegality as the appellate court has discretionary power to impose such condition, therefore, no interference is called for. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 9. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Amarveer Singh's case (supra) while taking into consideration the question of power of appellate court of imposing any condition while deciding an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal has held as under:- "10. The suspension of sentence is to release the accused on bail. In fact, the very heading of Section 389 Cr.P.C., states that "suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail." Furthermore, the said provision has empowers the appellate Court to see that the execution of sentence or order appealed against, be suspended and also if he is in confinement that he be released on bail. Similarly, the said provision, in different eventuality, mentions about release of the accused on bail. 11. When a matter is considered fit for hearing and the substantive sentence of the petitioner is ordered to be suspended then imposition of condition of payment of amount, out of fine or compensation, is not at all justified. This would mean that if a person who is not in a position to make payment of the said amount, his sentence would not be suspended and he would be deprived of hearing of appeal and will have to undergo sentence, although ultimately he may be acquitted. Poverty of the accused should not come in the way of hearing the appeal or suspension of sentence in case the appeal is found to be worth hearing. ........ ........ Poverty of the accused should not come in the way of hearing the appeal or suspension of sentence in case the appeal is found to be worth hearing. ........ ........ 19........In other words, the learned courts below are not to impose condition of any nature while suspending the sentence/ granting bail to an accused which amounts to be onerous. Such imposition is virtually denial of bail to the accused even though he is entitled for the same, otherwise. 20. Therefore, in view of the question involved in this matter, it is to be noted that an accused for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act would ordinarily be granted bail in view of the fact that the offence is bailable one. Therefore, an accused is not to be taken in custody during trial. Likewise, while exercising appellate powers, a person should not be made to suffer imprisonment only because the conditions imposed for suspending the sentence are harsh." 10. In view of the above law laid down by the Court in Amarveer Singh's case (supra), this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2014 to the extent of imposing condition of depositing fine is quashed and set aside. The stay petition is disposed of.Petition allowed. *******