ORDER : 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant Garima Vyas D/o. Avinash Vyas, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide the judgment dated 18.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case No. 64/2011 (CIS 46/2014). 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentence. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. Facts in Brief:-A wireless information was received regarding two ladies having been stabbed by knives near Village Nimbla one kilometer towards Aahor and that they were lying in a Maruti Swift Dezire vehicle. On receiving this information, Mr. Manohar Lal, the Officer-in-charge, Police Outpost Bhadra Joon reached the spot at 05.15 p.m. on 02.05.2011 and saw a white Maruti Swift Dezire Car Registration No. RJ-19-CB-4257 lying besides the road. Dead body an old lady aged about 60-65 years was lying inside the car, whereas dead body of a lady aged about 30-32 years was lying on the road. Both had been stabbed and killed. Mr. Manohar Lal submitted a report at the Police Station Nosara, on which the FIR No. 38/2011 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, it came to light that the victims were Smt. Satyendra Kuar, wife of accused Mehar Singh, and Smt. Jagjeet Kaur, mother of Smt. Satyendra Kaur. The relations between Mehar Singh and Smt. Satyendra Kaur were strained. The lady had drawn numerous insurance policies etc. and owned properties. Mehar Singh was the nominee in the insurance policies. He used to quarrel with Satyendra Kaur and had an evil eye on her properties. He was also involved in extramarital affairs with other women. He used to pressurize Smt. Satyendra Kaur to transfer her properties and business to his name. With this objective, Mehar Singh conspired with his brother Lakhjindra Singh and the appellant herein his alleged lover and killed the two ladies while they were proceeding in the Maruti Swift Dezire Car. 5. The prosecution case as against the appellant was primarily based on four circumstances, viz. With this objective, Mehar Singh conspired with his brother Lakhjindra Singh and the appellant herein his alleged lover and killed the two ladies while they were proceeding in the Maruti Swift Dezire Car. 5. The prosecution case as against the appellant was primarily based on four circumstances, viz. (1) Extramarital affair between the appellant and Lakhjindra Singh; (2) the appellant was lastly seen in the company of the accused Lakhjindra Singh and the two ladies in the Maruti Swift Dezire car by witness Poorandas (P.W. 16); (3) recovery of a bag at a distance of one km. from the place of incident, wherein identity documents of the appellant were lying; (4) that a mobile phone with sim No. 9530184690 was recovered from the possession of the appellant herein and that regular frequent calls and chats were made from this mobile number to the mobile number of the co-accused Mehar Singh and Lakhjindra Singh. As per the call detail record, location of the above mobile phone was around Mogda, Kankani and Bhadra Joon, which is just nearby the place of incident. The frequent calls and chats established that the appellant was deeply involved in an affair with Lakhjindra Singh. 6. Based on these circumstantial evidence, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. 7. Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. There is no evidence whatsoever to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The witness of last seen Poorandas (P.W. 16) was present when the dead bodies were recovered and the documents were prepared by the Investigating Officer on 03.05.2011, yet he did not disclose the fact regarding having seen the accused appellant with Lakhjindra Singh on the day of the incident or that she followed the car of the victims on a motorcycle. Mr. Khatri further pointed out that the witness admitted that he did not know the appellant from before. In such circumstances, non-holding of a test identification parade mitigates the circumstance of last seen as against the appellant. Mr. Khatri further submitted that the mobile phone in question was as a matter of fact, was not recovered from the appellant. The Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh (P.W. 19) did not state in his testimony that the said mobile phone was recovered from the appellant. Mr. Khatri further submitted that the mobile phone in question was as a matter of fact, was not recovered from the appellant. The Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh (P.W. 19) did not state in his testimony that the said mobile phone was recovered from the appellant. The mobile number was issued to Iqbal Singh, father of the deceased Satyendra Kaur, and as such the prosecution was under an obligation to explain as to how the said mobile came into possession of the accused. The call details on which the trial court placed reliance were not proved by the prosecution and were exhibited by the defence. He urged that the appellant is a young woman, aged 35 years. She was on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty granted to her. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant implored the court to accept the application for suspension of sentence. 8. Learned Public Prosecution has opposed the application for suspension of sentence. However, he too does not dispute the fact that four circumstances on the strength whereof the appellant has been convicted by the trial court, which are in the form of (1) so-called extramarital affair of the appellant with the co-accused Lakhjindra Singh; (2) the recovery of the bag of the appellant from a distance of one km. from the place of incident and (3) mobile call details record referred to supra; (4) last seen. 9. Suffice it to say that there is hardly any convincing evidence on the record to satisfy the court regarding the allegation of extramarital affair between the appellant and the co-accused Lakhjindra Singh as no witness examined during trial gave convincing evidence on this aspect. The mobile number which has been attributed to the appellant and which has been treated to be incriminating circumstance against the appellant was issued in the name of Iqbal Singh, father of the deceased Satyendra Kaur. The prosecution did not prove the call details and the defence relied upon the same. The Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh (P.W. 19), while deposing on oath did not state that the mobile phone was recovered from the person of the accused appellant when she was arrested. The prosecution gave no explanation as to how the mobile phone issued in the name of Iqbal Singh came into possession of the appellant. The Investigating Officer Rajendra Singh (P.W. 19), while deposing on oath did not state that the mobile phone was recovered from the person of the accused appellant when she was arrested. The prosecution gave no explanation as to how the mobile phone issued in the name of Iqbal Singh came into possession of the appellant. The witness Poorndas (P.W. 16), who claimed to have lastly seen the victims, the appellant and the accused Lakhjindra Singh together before the incident, admitted that he did not know the accused Garima from before and that no test identification proceedings were held by the Investigating Officer to confirm her identity. The investigation statement of Poorndas was recorded after nearly a month of the incident. The appellant being a woman was on bail during the course of the trial. She did not misuse the liberty so granted to her. She has strong and plausible grounds to assail the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. 10. In this background and having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of indulgence of bail to the appellant-applicant by suspending the sentence awarded to her by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal. 11. 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 Sessions Judge, Jalore vide judgment dated 18.12.2021 in Sessions Case No.64/2011 (CIS 46/2014) against the appellant-applicant Garima Vyas D/o. Avinash Vyas shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and she shall be released on bail, provided she 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 her appearance in this court on 18.02.2022 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That she 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, she will give in writing her changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. That she 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, she will give in writing her 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. 12. 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.