ORDER : Anant S. Dave, J. Rule. Ms. Moxa K. Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule, for and on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. Heard Mr. T.K Gurnani, learned advocate for the applicant. 3. Earlier, on 10.06.2016 while admitting appeal against judgment of conviction and sentence, this Court observed that no bail application will be preferred unless R & P is received in due course. During pendency of the above appeal, two other co-convicts came to be enlarged on bail by suspending sentence, and thereafter, now R & P is received the application for suspending sentence and bail is taken up for hearing. 4. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant/appellant/original accused No. 1 that two other co-convicts having convicted under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 and 120(B) of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- etc. were considered by this Court for suspending sentence and grant of regular bail of co-convicts, namely, Hamid Aashif Bundu Joje (Muslim) in Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail) No. 21924 of 2016 on 08.09.2016 and prior to that Shayamsingh Harendrasingh Jat in Criminal Misc. Application (For Suspension of Sentence) No. 11659 of 2016 on 26.07.2016 It is further submitted that, no doubt, case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, but in the backdrop of section 34 and 120(B) of IPC, a case was established before the trial Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by disbelieving the case under Section 376 of IPC. It is submitted that circumstances established by the prosecution and so believed by the learned trial judge have basis in believing credibility and trustworthiness and reliability of witnesses who deposed. But, still it remains strong doubtful whether the prosecution could establish the manner and method of commission of offence, place of offence and participation of accused in crime. Other circumstances relied on by the learned advocate for the applicant in the facts of this case is doubtful identification parade and absence of FSL evidence to which reference is already made in earlier two orders while suspending sentence and granting bail to other two co-convicts. It is further submitted that the case of applicant herein is also to be considered at par with other co-convicts and sentence by suspended and the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned APP Ms. It is further submitted that the case of applicant herein is also to be considered at par with other co-convicts and sentence by suspended and the applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakker, has opposed the grant of bail suspending the sentence and grant of bail on the ground that once conviction is recorded and sentence ordered, where present applicant has not played any overt act pale into insignificance and case of the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence is now proved for offences under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 and 120(B) IPC, the application deserves to be rejected. 6. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP, we deem it just and proper not to report the facts in detail, since this Court has already considered the bail applications of co-accused, namely, Hamid Aashif Bundu Joje (Muslim) in Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail) No. 21924 of 2016 and Shayamsingh Harendrasingh Jat in Criminal Misc. Application (For Suspension of Sentence) No. 11659 of 2016. 7. Thus, on perusal of the entire record of the case, we are inclined to pass similar order of suspension of sentence and enlarging the applicant herein on bail, as prima facie, we find that the case of the present applicant-convict is at par with that of other two co-accused. 8. Resultantly, the present application is allowed. Applicant is hereby ordered to be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and a personal bond of the like amount on usual terms and on the following further conditions: [1] The applicant shall not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty; [2] The applicant shall not try to tamper with the evidence or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner; [3] maintain law and order; [4] surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court, within a week. 9. In the meantime, the substantive sentence shall remain under suspension. Bail bond before the Trial Court. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. The observation made herein shall have no bearing on the case, at the stage of final hearing.