JUDGMENT 1. Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to these applications for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. The appellant applicants herein stand convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC vide judgment dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 07/2006 (CIS No. 32/2014). 4. Learned counsel Shri Choudhary submits that the first application for suspension of sentences submitted on behalf of the applicants was not pressed. He further submits that there is no difference whatsoever in the case of the present applicants and that of the male co-accused Setha Ram and Jetha Ram who have been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after rejection of the petitioner applicants first application for suspension of sentences (upon being not pressed). He drew the Courts attention to the statements of the material prosecution witnesses Lichhma (PW-3), Gajraj (PW-5) and Sanjay (PW-12) and urged that manifestly, these witnesses have made no distinction whatsoever in the case of the present applicants vis-a- vis that of the two male co-accused Setha Ram and Jetha Ram whose applications for suspension of sentences have been accepted by this Court. He thus urges that the applicants, being ladies, are also entitled to indulgence of bail during pendency of appeal. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the applicants counsel. However, they too do not dispute the fact that upon an evaluation of testimony of the material prosecution witnesses Lichhma (PW-3), Gajraj (PW-5) and Sanjay (PW-12), there is no distinction whatsoever in the case of the present applicants and that of the two male co-accused Setha Ram and Jetha Ram who have since been enlarged on bail by this Court. 6. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as emerging from record and the fact that the applicant appellants are ladies and since hearing of the appeal is likely to take time, we are inclined to accept this application for suspension of sentences. 7. 6. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as emerging from record and the fact that the applicant appellants are ladies and since hearing of the appeal is likely to take time, we are inclined to accept this application for suspension of sentences. 7. Accordingly, this second application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana, District Nagaur, vide judgment dated 22.12.2017 in Sessions Case No. 07/2006 (CIS No. 32/2014) against the appellant-applicants (1) Smt Baju Devi @ Bajudi, and (2) Smt. Santu @ Santudi, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 11.02.2019 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.