JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application for suspension of sentences has been preferred by the applicants-appellants under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking release on bail during pendency of the appeal by suspending the sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 35/2017 vide judgment dated 19.4.2021 whereby the applicants-appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as below: Offences 304B IPC Sentences with Fine Life Imprisonment Default Sentence 498A IPC Three years' SI with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- 1 month's S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel Mr. Devendra Mehalana representing the appellants-applicants through Video Conferencing and Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, learned AGC and have gone through the impugned judgment and record. 3. Learned counsel Shri Mehalana representing the appellants applicants vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecution had filed a charge-sheet against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, in the alternative Section 306 IPC and in the alternative Section 302/34 IPC. The learned trial court acquitted the appellants from the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 302 IPC and has convicted them as above. He urged that the appellant Sube Singh was admittedly lodged in custody on the date of the incident. The appellant Gyan Singh and Smt. Rinku were married on 2.3.2011. Smt. Rinku unfortunately got accidentally burnt on 13.4.2017. The appellant Gyan Singh tried to douse the fire and received extensive burns on his hands. Smt. Rinku was immediately rushed to the hospital where, her version was recorded in the bedhead ticket (Ex.D4) in which, the lady stated that she had received the burns accidentally while trying to boil water. He urges that even though Smt. Rinku was well oriented and fully conscious at the time of her admission in the Govt. Hospital Hanumangarh Town, no effort was made to get her statement recorded. He further contended that the prosecution tried to twist the case in the evidence of child witness P.W. 5 Sushri Soniya, daughter of the appellant Gyan Singh and the deceased Smt. Rinku. However, the trial court discarded her testimony. Hospital Hanumangarh Town, no effort was made to get her statement recorded. He further contended that the prosecution tried to twist the case in the evidence of child witness P.W. 5 Sushri Soniya, daughter of the appellant Gyan Singh and the deceased Smt. Rinku. However, the trial court discarded her testimony. He submits that there is no substance in the allegations of the witnesses Nirmala P.W. 1 mother of the deceased and Ratan Singh P.W. 4 father of the deceased, that their daughter was maltreated on account of demand of dowry. He further contended that the appellants are in custody since April 2017. Hearing of the appeal is unlikely in the near future. On these grounds, Shri Mehalana implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and enlarge the appellants on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences. He vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel and contended that the deceased Smt. Rinku was done to death by burning in the matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage with the appellant Gyan Singh. She was brutally beaten and then was set to fire in the matrimonial home on 13.4.2017. Regular complaints of maltreatment on account of demand of money were being made by the lady to her father and mother. He thus urges that the appellants do not deserve indulgence of bail by this Court. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. 6. Ex-facie, it is clear that the prosecution tried to level multifold charges against the appellants by imputing that the death of Smt. Rinku was a dowry death/she committed suicide/she was murdered. The star prosecution child witness Sushri Soniya P.W. 5 daughter of the appellant Gyan Singh and Smt. Rinku, tried to impute in her evidence that the appellant Gyan Singh set fire to Smt. Rinku. However, the evidence of this child witness was disbelieved by the trial court. It was admitted by the Investigating Officer P.W. 15 Shri Virendra Jakhar that the appellant Gyan Singh tried to douse the fire of Smt. Rinku and in this process, he received extensive burns on his hands. The accused appellant Sube Singh was in jail from 25.3.2017 till 19.4.2017. It was admitted by the Investigating Officer P.W. 15 Shri Virendra Jakhar that the appellant Gyan Singh tried to douse the fire of Smt. Rinku and in this process, he received extensive burns on his hands. The accused appellant Sube Singh was in jail from 25.3.2017 till 19.4.2017. The main allegation of demand which was set out in the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses was to the effect that the accused were demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lac so that Sube Singh could be got released on bail. However, the Investigating Officer P.W. 15 Virendra Jakhar admitted in his cross-examination that he could not collect any corroborative evidence in this regard. As per the bedhead ticket (Ex.D4) and the statement of the doctor Rajendra Singh Kumawat, P.W. 4, Smt. Rekha was admitted to the hospital, Hanumangarh Town on 13.4.2017 and on inquiry being made by the doctor, she stated that she had got burnt accidentally while trying to boil water on fire. 7. In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellants have available to them, strong and plausible grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. Hence, the sentences awarded to the applicants deserve to be suspended during pendency of the appeal. 8. 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 Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 19.4.2021 in Sessions Case No. 35/2017 against the appellants-applicants Gyan Singh and Sube Singh sons of Bhoop Singh, 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. 80,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 07.02.2022 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. 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. 9. 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.