JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. When the matter was called out, nobody was appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to contest this application. As per report of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gir-Somnath @ Veraval dated 28th January, 2022, it is stated that respondent No. 2 has been informed through notice, as per report of Veraval police station. 2. This application is filed by the applicant praying for suspension of sentence awarded to the applicant vide order dated 6.12.2021 below Exh. 45 in Atro Case No. 12 of 2019 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, and Judge, Special Court (Atrocity Act), Gir Somnath @ Veraval and also requested to enlarge the applicant on bail till the hearing and final disposal of the above captioned Criminal Appeal. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that learned Judge has not appreciated the documentary evidence and oral evidence produced on record in its true spirit and thereby, has committed miscarriage of justice by convicting the applicant. That, the court below has also committed serious error of law by framing defective charge against the accused persons and thereby on the basis of such defective charge, accused has been tried and convicted, and therefore, conviction is not at all sustainable. That, maximum punishment under Section 323 of IPC is one year and under the Atrocities Act, the maximum punishment u/s. 3(1)(r)(s) is for two years along with fine amount. That, amount of fine was already deposited by the present applicant. That, applicant was enlarged on bail during the trial. He has requested to enlarge the applicant on bail till the hearing and final disposal of the captioned Criminal Appeal. 4. Learned APP for the respondent -State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that trial Court has rightly convicted the present applicant as he has been involved in the serious offence and requested this Court to dismiss the present application. 5. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent -State, it appears that applicant was released on regular bail during the entire trial and he was abided by all the conditions imposed upon him. That, applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2022 which was admitted by this Court on 10th January, 2022. 6. That, applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2022 which was admitted by this Court on 10th January, 2022. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1999 SC 1859 wherein, it is held as under:- Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) S. 389- Appeal against conviction -Suspension of sentence during pendency - High Court not inclined to hear appeal expeditiously - Appellant directed to be released on bail. When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted. Where High Court was not inclined to hear the appeal expeditiously the sentence passed on appellant can be suspended on some stringent conditions. The Court, therefore, suspended the sentence and directed the appellant to be released on bail. This is a case where appellants have been convicted by the trial court of the offence under Section 392 read with Section 397 and each of Them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. They filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat and moved for suspension of sentence, but that was not allowed. At a later stage they again moved for suspension of sentence and that too was dismissed by the impugned order. They filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat and moved for suspension of sentence, but that was not allowed. At a later stage they again moved for suspension of sentence and that too was dismissed by the impugned order. Unfortunately, when they made a motion for having their appeal expedited that also was declined by the High Court on the premise that the High Court is having older appeals on the board. When a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. of course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter suspending the sentence, so as to make the appeal right meaningful and effective. of course appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted. In this case as the High Court was not inclined to hear the appeal expeditiously we are of the view that the sentence passed on appellants can be suspended on some stringent conditions. We, therefore, suspend the sentence and direct the appellants to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad. We direct the appellants to report to Kapadwang Police Station on all Mondays and Thursdays between 4.00 P.M. and 6.00 P.M. until disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court. 7. As number of Criminal Appeals are pending before this Court and there is no possibility to hear and decide the captioned Criminal Appeal within near future and it will take reasonable time, till then, judicial custody of the present applicant is not required. 7. As number of Criminal Appeals are pending before this Court and there is no possibility to hear and decide the captioned Criminal Appeal within near future and it will take reasonable time, till then, judicial custody of the present applicant is not required. Hence, this Court deems it fit to suspend the sentence imposed upon the applicant by the trial Court till hearing and final disposal of the captioned Criminal Appeal. 8. Present application stands allowed. Thus, considering the facts mentioned above, pending hearing and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2022, the sentence imposed upon the applicant vide judgement and order dated 6.12.2021 below Exh. 45 in Atro Case No. 12 of 2019 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, and Judge, Special Court (Atrocity Act), Gir Somnath @ Veraval stands suspended and the applicant shall be released on regular bail by executing fresh bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court till hearing and final disposal of this Criminal Appeal with a condition that he shall proceed with the Criminal Appeal as and when it may be listed, and he shall surrender his passport, if having, before the learned trial Court and shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 9. Registry shall communicate this order to the concerned Sessions Court as well as concerned jail authority.