JUDGMENT 1. The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellant-applicant who has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 01.04.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Barmer in Sessions Case No.127/2016 (30/2017): Offence Under Section Imprisonment Fine Sentence in default of fine 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 3 Months' RI 392 IPC 10 Years' RI Rs.10,000/- 3 Months' RI Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application as per which, the appellant does not have any criminal incidents. 3. As per the story set out in the prosecution case, the appellant is the nephew (brother's son) of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as 'the victim') who was the estranged wife of Sanwalnath. The victim had started living in the Lord Krishna temple in the village Kerala and used to lead a life as a hermit. On 17.06.2016, it was reported that the victim was not seen in or around the temple on which, the family members got worried. The door of the room constructed near the temple was locked and foul smell was emanating therefrom. The villagers were called who looked inside the room from the window and saw the dead body of the victim lying partially concealed in a plastic drum. The police was informed. The room was opened and the dead body of the victim was recovered therefrom. Shri Asu Bharati, father of the victim lodged the FIR of the incident. The appellant was arrested on 21.06.2016 and at his instance, recoveries of his clothes (allegedly blood stained), certain coins, the key of the lock affixed on the door of the room and a spade, allegedly used in the incident were effected. After concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 302 and 392 of the IPC. After trial, the appellant was acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 376 (1) IPC but he has been convicted and sentenced as above for the remaining two offences. The appellant who is in custody right from the date of his initial arrest i.e. 21.06.2016 has approached this Court through this application for suspension of sentences. 4. After trial, the appellant was acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 376 (1) IPC but he has been convicted and sentenced as above for the remaining two offences. The appellant who is in custody right from the date of his initial arrest i.e. 21.06.2016 has approached this Court through this application for suspension of sentences. 4. Shri Manish Patel, Advocate representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that there is no evidence on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The links of circumstantial evidence on which the trial court relied upon are not convincing evidence so as to connect the appellant with the alleged murder. The appellant had no motive whatsoever to murder his own paternal aunt, the victim herein. The recoveries of the key and the spade on which, heavy reliance was placed by the trial court are fabricated. The Panch witnesses did not support the recovery documents. The appellant was a free- bird till 21.06.2016 and thus, there was no reason for him to have concealed and securely retained these two worthless incriminating articles so as to give an opportunity to the police of creating evidence against him. Shri Patel urged that the trial court relied upon the fact that the accused himself was found having numerous injuries on his body at the time of arrest and that these injuries must have been received in the struggle put up by the victim when she was being assaulted. However, Shri Patel referred to the statement of Dr. Jogesh Kumar (PW.21) who examined the appellant for his injuries and issued the medico legal report (Ex.P/46). Shri Patel submitted that the medical examination was carried out on 21.06.2016. The doctor opined that the injuries were 3-4 days old. However, the victim was allegedly assaulted and murdered 2-3 days before 17.06.2016 and thus, as per Shri Patel, the injuries do not co-relate with the incident. On these grounds, Shri Patel implored the Court to accept the instant application for suspension of sentences and direct enlargement of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the trial court itself acquitted the accused from the charge punishable under Section 376 (1) IPC. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the trial court itself acquitted the accused from the charge punishable under Section 376 (1) IPC. It is not in dispute that the accused was arrested on 21.06.2016 whereas the alleged murder took place 2-3 days before 17.06.2016. The medico legal report (Ex.P/46) prepared after medical examination of the accused would reveal that when the injuries of the accused were examined, he was found having 6-7 abrasions which were 3-4 days old. Thus, the injuries so suffered by the accused cannot be co-related with the time of the alleged murder which took place 2-3 days before 17.06.2016. So far as the recovery of the key of the lock and the spade stained with 'B' blood group is concerned, we are of prima facie view that as the FIR was filed against an unknown assailant and since the accused was a free-bird till 21.06.2016, there was no rhyme or reason as to why he would safely retain these worthless incriminating pieces of evidence so as to give opportunity to the police to create evidence against him at a later stage. Rather, we are of firm opinion that there is no reason as to why the accused wold carry away the worthless key of the lock of the room, where the victim was murdered with himself. Few coins recovered by the IO on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused cannot be linked with the incident because the same do not have any identifiable marks. On going through the entire prosecution evidence, we are of satisfied that the accused had no tangible motive so as to murder his own paternal aunt, the victim herein. The accused has been in custody since 21.06.2016. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant herein deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal. 7. The accused has been in custody since 21.06.2016. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant herein deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Barmer vide judgment dated 01.04.2022 in Sessions Case No.127/2016 against the appellant-applicant Chauth Bharti @ Bhattu Bharti S/o Shri Shiva Bharti shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail subject to the condition that he shall furnish 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 21.12.2022 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. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. 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.