ORDER : 1. The appellant-applicant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 4/2016 : Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- 2 Months' S.I. Section 307/149 IPC 7 Years' R.I. Rs. 5,000/- 1 Month's S.I. Section 341 IPC 1 Month's S.I. Section 148 IPC 1 Year's S.I. Rs. 1000/- 15 Days' SI Section 323/149 IPC 6 Months' S.I. Rs. 500/- 7 Days' S.I. 2. He has preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 111/2021 for assailing the impugned judgment and in continuance thereof, the instant application for suspension of sentences has been moved under Section 389 CrPC. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor does not propose to file reply to the application for suspension of sentences and has chosen to argue the matter orally. 4. As per the allegations set out in the prosecution case and to be specific, in the statement of the star prosecution witness Sandeep @ Sethi (P.W. 5), the sharp weapon injuries inflicted to the deceased were assigned to Abhijeet. The appellant and the co-accused Sunil Bishnoi, Sunil Choyal, Rakesh Choyal and Krishna Sangwan were allegedly armed with lathis. The applications for suspension of sentences preferred on behalf of co-accused Sunil S/o. Ramkumar and Rakesh S/o. Balram have been accepted by this court observing as below:- "A perusal of the material facts indicates that the complainant Harchand (P.W. 1) set out a case in the F.I.R. (Ex. P/2) that in the night of 06.10.2015 his son Pradeep received a call from one Sandeep Nai that his elder brother Kuldeep had been surrounded by Abhijeet, Surendra, Sunil Bishnoi, Rakesh Choyal, Sunil Choyal and 2-3 other persons with arms near Panchayat Ghar and that trouble was brewing up. On getting this information, the informant, alongwith his son Pradeep and nephew Mohan boarded a motorcycle and went to the Ward Panchayat Ghar. They saw that Surendra Choyal was having a pointed weapon whereas the other accused namely Sunil Bishnoi, Rakesh and Sunil Choyal were armed with lathis and gandasis. Before they could intervene and save Kuldeep, they saw Abhijeet, Surendra, Sunil Bishnoi and Rakesh Choyal assaulting Kuldeep in a brutal manner. Knife injuries were inflicted on the abdomen and face of Kuldeep by Abhijeet and Surendra Choyal. The other accused also started assaulting the deceased. Before they could intervene and save Kuldeep, they saw Abhijeet, Surendra, Sunil Bishnoi and Rakesh Choyal assaulting Kuldeep in a brutal manner. Knife injuries were inflicted on the abdomen and face of Kuldeep by Abhijeet and Surendra Choyal. The other accused also started assaulting the deceased. Pradeep tried to intervene to save Kuldeep, but he too was beaten up by knives, other pointed weapons and lathis. The complainant and few other persons who had collected there and raised a hue and cry, on which the accused escaped from the spot. The complainant checked Pradeep and Kuldeep but they were seriously injured and were not fit to walk. Both were taken to the hospital, where Kuldeep expired as a result of the injuries. After conducting thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet only against Abhijeet and Surendra Choyal whereas, the investigation was kept pending qua Rakesh Choyal, Sunil Choyal, Sunil Bishnoi and others under Section 173(8) CrPC. The case of Abhijeet and Surendra Choyal was committed to the sessions court where, the charges were framed and evidence was commenced. After the evidence of Harchand (P.W. 1) had been recorded, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC which was accepted and Rakesh Choyal, Sunil Choyal and Krishna Sagwan were summoned to face trial for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323, 307 and 302/149 IPC. Krishna Sagwan challenged the order issuing process by filing revision in the High court, which was accepted. However, the complainant approached the Supreme Court, the High Court's order was set aside and the order dated 25.08.2017 passed by the trial court was restored. After trial, the appellant and the co-accused persons have been convicted vide judgment dated 13.09.2021. Shri Bhari, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. Testimony of the material witnesses viz. Harchand (P.W. 1) and Pradeep (P.W. 2) is totally unreliable. They have made wholesome exaggerations while arraigning the accused in the incident. The witnesses alleged that Abhijeet was armed with a pointed knife with which he stabbed Kuldeep and Pradeep. The other accused persons who were allegedly armed with lathis also gave the blows thereof, but as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/15) and the evidence of the Medical Jurist Dr. The witnesses alleged that Abhijeet was armed with a pointed knife with which he stabbed Kuldeep and Pradeep. The other accused persons who were allegedly armed with lathis also gave the blows thereof, but as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/15) and the evidence of the Medical Jurist Dr. Shankerlal Soni (P.W. 8), also two cut wounds were noticed on the dead body of Kuldeep, one on the left side of the face and the one on the epigastric region abdomen and the abdominal injury proved fatal. Pradeep received two injuries by sharp weapon. He thus urged that the implication of the accused persons other than Abhijeet in this case is a sheer exaggeration as not even a single injury by a blunt weapon was noticed either on the dead body of Kuldeep or on the person of Pradeep, which completely contradicts the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused including the appellant herein who were armed with the lathis also participated in the assault. He thus urges that the appellant who was on bail during the course of trial, deserves the same indulgence during the pendency of the appeal because hearing of the appeal will consume time and the appellant has a strong case so as to assail the impugned judgment. Hence, he implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct his release on bail during pendency of the appeal. Per contra, learned Public Prosecution vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that as per the first information report (Ex. P/2) and the evidence of the material eye-witnesses, the appellant and his companions had surrounded the hapless victim Kuldeep near the Panchayat building. They were armed tooth and nail. Kuldeep was brutally assaulted by Abhijeet who was armed with his knife and when his brother Pradeep tried to intervene, he too was inflicted knife blows. All the accused present at the spot are responsible as being the members of the unlawful assembly. On these grounds learned Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the application for suspension of sentences. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence available on record. Ex-facie, it is apparent that as per the F.I.R. (Ex. On these grounds learned Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the application for suspension of sentences. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence available on record. Ex-facie, it is apparent that as per the F.I.R. (Ex. P/2) as well as the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses Harchand (P.W. 1) and Pradeep (P.W. 2) (injured), only the accused Abhijeet was alleged to be armed with knife, whereas the other accused were alleged to be armed with lathis at the time of the incident. Both the witnesses categorically stated that Abhijeet inflicted knife blows to Kuldeep and thereafter the other accused persons rained lathi blows on the deceased Kuldeep and injured Pradeep. However, not a single injury in the form of laceration etc. which could correspond to lathi blows being inflicted was noticed when the Medical Jurist conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kuldeep and issued postmortem report (Ex. P/15) and while preparing injury report (Ex. P/16) of the injured Pradeep. In this background, we find merit in the contention of the learned defence counsel that there has been an attempt of wholesale over-implication by the material prosecution witnesses while naming the accused as assailants in this case. As the allegation regarding lathi blows having been inflicted to the deceased and the injured Pradeep is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The appellant was on bail during the course of the trial and since he made no attempt to misuse the liberty so granted to him, we are of the opinion that he deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal." 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant are not in position to dispute the fact that the case of the present applicant stands on identical footing to that of co-accused Sunil and Rakesh, who have already been released on bail. 6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 13.09.2021 in Sessions Case No. 4/2016 against the appellant-applicant Surendra Kumar S/o. Ramkumar shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he 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 his appearance in this court on 04.02.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his 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. 7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant was 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 does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.