JUDGMENT 1. I.A. No.9049/2019, 1st application u/S.389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.4- Vicky @ Vikas is taken up and considered along with reply of the State. 2. This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 31/07/2018 passed in S.T. No.05/2017 by Sessions Judge, Datia (M.P.) whereby the present appellant has been convicted as under with default stipulation :- Sections Imprisonment Fine 148 of IPC 1 Years R.I. Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation 302/149 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation 323/149 of IPC (on two counts) 6 months R.I. (on each count) Rs. 500/- (on each count) with default stipulation 3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 4. Prosecution story found to be proved is that on the issue of some previous land dispute between the rival parties arguments and altercation took place where main accused Kallu @ Virendra Dhakad and the present appellant along with unknown persons came on motorcycle to the spot where deceased- Golu was present. During the course of incident, other family members of the complainant including Asha and Pista also came to the scene of occurrence. The main accused- Kallu is alleged to have caused gun shot injury to the deceased which was sustained in the right thigh which proved to be fatal. However, the name of both the co-accused Raju and Jitendra did not find mentioned in the FIR but in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the eye-witnesses, they were named and also were identified in Test Identification Parade conducted subsequently. 5. The prosecution story further reveals that when the gun shot injuries were fired, co-accused Raju and Jitendra had intervened and prevented injured Asha and Pista from coming to the rescue of the deceased and in the process they received certain minor injuries with Lathi. 6. As such conviction of the co-accused is primarily based on unlawful assembly with the aid of Section 149. No overt act is caused except minor injuries which are attributed to co-accused. 6. As such conviction of the co-accused is primarily based on unlawful assembly with the aid of Section 149. No overt act is caused except minor injuries which are attributed to co-accused. The appellant has suffered about One and half years of incarceration including preconviction period and he claims parity with the co-accused persons who have been enlarged by this Court on bail vide orders dated 10/05/2019 and 31/10/2019. 7. Considering the above facts and that there is no likelihood of early disposal of the appeal in near future, this Court is inclined to grant the bail to the appellant No.4 Vicky @ Vikas by way of suspension of sentence. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, I.A. No.9049/2019 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of appellant No.4 Vicky @ Vikas will remain under suspension subject to the verification that the amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties each of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of concerned CJM for his appearance before the concerned CJM on 15/04/2020 and on such further dates as may be fixed by him which shall be of frequency not less than once a year. 9. In case, appellant No.4 Vicky @ Vikas is found absent on any date fixed by the concerned C.J.M then the said C.J.M shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed. 10. The aforesaid order of suspension of sentence passed in regard to the appellant shall remain in force subject to appellant making plantation of 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of appellant or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at his own expenses. In case the appellant is unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. In case the appellant is unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. The appellant shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail. 11. On complying with aforesaid condition, the appellant is directed to inform the location of plantation made to the Forest Range Officer of the area concerned who will pass on this information to the DFO concerned. 12. For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within which the appellant resides is directed to assist the appellant/accused to comply with the said condition by extending all possible financial and material assistance to the appellant admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State. 13. The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial Court concerned after carrying out inspection personally or through any other officer of the Forest Dept duly authorized in that behalf disclosing as to whether appellant has complied with the said condition or not, and if yes to what extent? The learned trial Judge on receiving report of non-compliance of the said shall forthwith communicate the same to the Registry of this Court. 14. The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate Bench in shape of PUD. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. 16. Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives. 17. A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the appellant for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology. 18. For the time being, I.A. No. 9049/2019 stands disposed of . Certified copy as per rule.