ORDER : G.R. Udhwani, J. The applicants have been convicted inter-alia for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the Code’) for abetting Kapilaben - the deceased to commit suicide by repeatedly stating that she had illicit relations with one - Mr. Thakore. The case under Section 498A and 306 of the Code amongst other provisions was instituted against the applicants as well as the in-laws of the deceased. During the course of the trial, the complainant and other witnesses turned hostile qua the case under Sections 498A, 306 and other provisions against in-laws of the deceased but sustained the case under Section 306 against the applicants. 2. From the deposition as also other evidence, learned Counsel for the applicants pointed out that the thumb impression below the dying declaration is identified as the thumb impression of one of the witnesses - Kokilaben and not that of the deceased. It was pointed out that infact both hands of the deceased were burnt to an extent that it was not possible for her to put a thumb impression. It was also pointed out that the entire story against the applicants was cooked up after the aforesaid dying declaration of the deceased where she allegedly implicated the applicants. It was also argued that the Post Mortem Report also does not support the fact of the ink marks on the thumb of the deceased. It was therefore urged to enlarge the applicants on bail. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Rita Chandrana took this Court to the evidence of various witnesses and submitted that a clear case of abetment against the applicants was made out inasmuch as all the witnesses have specifically stated that harassment by the accused is the cause for the deceased - Kapilaben to commit suicide. It was argued that Kokilaben was the eyewitness when the character of the deceased was assassinated by the applicants. It was argued that the trial Court has rightly rejected the arguments made by the applicants that on the mere ground of a mistake in mentioning of the name of Kokilaben for Kapilaben by the learned Executive Magistrate recording the dying declaration, the dying declaration cannot be brushed aside. 4. It was argued that the trial Court has rightly rejected the arguments made by the applicants that on the mere ground of a mistake in mentioning of the name of Kokilaben for Kapilaben by the learned Executive Magistrate recording the dying declaration, the dying declaration cannot be brushed aside. 4. Having considered the rival contentions, prima-facie for the reasons pointed out by learned Counsel for the applicants, the dying declaration which has been substantially relied upon for conviction of the applicants appears to be under the clouds of doubt. It also appears that initially the case was pitched primarily on Section 498A of the Code and it was only after recording of the dying declaration that the witnesses came out with a case against the applicants. Further more, the sentence imposed upon the applicants is only for 5 years and they were on bail all through the proceedings. 5. In the above view of the matter, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail during the pendency of this Appeal by suspending the sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The application is, therefore, allowed. The sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 in Sessions Case No. 13/2015 is ordered to be suspended qua the present applicants till the final hearing of the appeal. The applicants be released on regular bail on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) EACH with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court with following conditions; (a) they shall not take undue advantage of their liberty or abuse their liberty; (b) maintain law and order; (c) surrender their passports, if any, to the lower court, within a week and if they do not possess any passport, then they shall make a declaration to that effect before the trial court; (d) If during the pendency of the criminal appeal any change in their residential address, permanent or temporary, takes place, then the applicants shall intimate the same to the trial court as well as the concerned Police Station. (e) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; 7. Bail before the trial court having jurisdiction. (e) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; 7. Bail before the trial court having jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that any observations made while deciding this bail application will not affect merits of the case at the time of final arguments. 8. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.