ORDER : P. M. RAVAL, J. 1. The present application is preferred by the applicant – original accused under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for suspension of sentence awarded to him vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.3.2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.84 of 2010. 2. Learned senior advocate Mr.B.B.Naik appearing for the applicant has mainly contended as follows : (a) That other co-accused in the present case i.e. Jignesh Soni has been considered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2020 and vide order dated 7.2.2020, he has been released on bail by suspending the sentence and hence, the present application is also required to be allowed on the basis of parity. (b) That learned trial Court has failed to appreciate glaring and serious infirmities in the prosecution case and despite there being contradiction in the evidences adduced by the prosecution which are fatal in nature have been brushed aside and has wrongly convicted the present applicant. (c) That the applicant has completed more than 14 years of incarceration period and despite the matter being fixed, the same has not been heard on merits and has thus, argued to allow the present application. 3. On the other hand, Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and has opposed the present application. It is submitted that the contentions raised by learned advocate for the applicant would amount to reappreciating the evidence which is not permissible while deciding the application for suspension of sentence. It is submitted that learned trial Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons and after appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence and merely because 14 years have passed is no ground to suspend the sentence and release the applicant on bail more particularly, when the complicity of the accused in serious crime of murder is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that role attributed to the applicant of murdering from point blank range is proved beyond reasonable doubt, no error whatsoever has been committed by learned trial Court. Under the circumstances, it is argued to reject the present application. 4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also gone through the charges levelled against the present accused. 5. Under the circumstances, it is argued to reject the present application. 4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also gone through the charges levelled against the present accused. 5. The issue arises as to whether the applicant has made out a case for suspension of sentence under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 or not? 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned advocates for both the sides. We have also perused the impugned judgement and order. In a serious offence of attracting the rigorous punishment, the Appellate Court has to assess the record only to see as to whether there is any apparent or gross error on which this Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to the decision in the case of Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123 . It has been observed while considering the scope of Section 389 of CrPC as under : “30. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa [ Kishori Lal v. Rupa , (2004) 7 SCC 638 ), this Court has indicated the factors that require to be considered by the courts while granting benefit under Section 389CrPC in cases involving serious offences like murder, etc. Thus, it is useful to refer to the observations made therein, which are as follows: (SCC PP. 639-40, paras 4-6) "4. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed against. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. 5. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. 5. The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the earlier period when the accused-respondents were on bail. 6. The mere fact that during the trial, they were granted bail and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty, is really not of much significance. The effect of bail granted during trial loses significance when on completion of trial, the accused persons have been found guilty. The mere fact that during the period when the accused persons were on bail during trial there was no misuse of liberties, does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court is whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have kept the correct principle in view." 31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [ Vijay Kumar v. Narendra , (2002) 9 SCC 364] and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [ Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal , (2002) 9 SCC 366 ], it was held by this Court that in cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar [ Vijay Kumar v. Narendra , (2002) 9 SCC 364], it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 3021PC, the court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. 32. 32. The aforesaid view is reiterated by this Court in Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [ Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra , (2005) 5 SCC 281 ] and Gomti v. Thakurdas [Gomti v. Thakurdas, (2007) 11 SCC 160 ). 33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach." 7. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, this Court has gone through the impugned judgment and order and it transpires that one person bearing mustaches and beard has shot fire gun due to which the deceased expired. However, his name was not disclosed in the FIR. It also transpires that during the test identification parade, the present applicant was identified by Uday and Anil. However, his name was not disclosed in the FIR. It also transpires that during the test identification parade, the present applicant was identified by Uday and Anil. Without discussing the merits and de-merits of the case which would prejudice to the case of either side, more particularly, the manner in which identification of the accused has been carried out and also considering the fact that the applicant accused has undergone 15 years, 7 months incarceration as on 3.9.2025 as per the report submitted by Ahmedabad Central Jail, we do not see any exeptional circumstance for not enlarging the applicant on bail, more particularly, when co-accused Jignesh Soni has been released on bail vide order dated 7.2.2020 and despite fixing of appeal vide order dated 4.3.2020 for final hearing, the appeal could not be taken up for hearing till today for one or the other reason and considering pendency of older appeals, we do not see immediate scope of appeal being taken up for hearing. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant has been made out. 8. Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate that this is a fit case to suspend the sentence imposed on the applicant and to enlarge him on bail pending Criminal Appeal. It is required to be noted that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and made only for the purpose of deciding the present application for suspension of sentence. 9. Accordingly, present application is allowed. The sentence of the applicant awarded vide judgment and order dated 20.03.2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.84 of 2010 is suspended during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal and the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to conditions that : (a) he shall not take undue advantage of the liberty or misuse the liberty; (b) he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the concerned Sessions Court; (c) he shall furnish the present address of his residence to the court concerned at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without the prior permission of the concerned Sessions Court. (d) he shall proceed with the Criminal Appeal as and when it may be listed. 10. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.