Since both the appeals have arisen out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.305/2009, both the following present interlocutory applications are being disposed of by the present common order:Heard on I.A.No.7748/16 and I.A.No.6669/16, applications under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence filed by appellant No.1, namely, Vikram (in Cra.450.2016) and by appellants No.1 and 4, namely, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh (in Cra.463.2016) respectively.Each of the appellants has been convicted as mentioned below:Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the present appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them.In the present case, so many eyewitnesses like Pappu (PW-1), Inder Singh (PW-2), Kera Bai (PW-6), Avtaar Singh (PW-7), Rajesh Yadav (PW-9), Bhura (PW-8), Chandu (PW-10) and Sunnulal Yadav were examined.Some of the witnesses have declined to see the assault done with the deceased Prahlad Singh and some of them have said omnibusly that all the accused persons who were ten in number assaulted the deceased Prahlad Singh.Eye-witness Rajesh Yadav (PW-9) has turned completely hostile.Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-4) has performed the post-mortem on the body of deceased Prahlad Singh and gave his report Ex.According to him there was a fracture on his head and a stitch wound was found on the head and he died due to the injuries caused on his head.Dr. Mamta Pardeshi (PW-3) had performed MLC of the deceased Prahlad Singh when he was alive.She gave a report Ex.According to her, several contusions were present on the head having size from 2x2 cms to 5x3cms.It was not 3 Cra.450.2016 & Cra.463.2016 mentioned by Dr. Mamta Pardeshi (PW-3) that how many contusions were found on the head whereas 10 accused persons were implicated in the crime.It is not the evidence of the witnesses that each of the accused had assaulted on the head of the deceased whereas no other injuries were found on his person except injuries on the head.No specific overt acts of the present appellants, namely, Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh have been established by any of the eyewitnesses.Possibility cannot be ruled out that the other accused persons had assaulted the deceased and therefore the deceased Prahlad Singh would have died.There is no reason to presume the common intention or object of the present appellants along with other main accused persons.There are fair chances of success in this appeal.Present appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily otherwise the present appeals filed by them may turn infructuous.Under these circumstances, appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh pray for suspension of their remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the 4 Cra.450.2016 & Cra.463.2016 fact that the present appellants were on bail during trial, it would be appropriate to accept the applications of appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh.Consequently, their applications I.A.No.7748/16 and I.A.No.6669/16 are hereby allowed.If appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh deposit the fine amount before the trial court and furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) each along with one surety bond each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that they shall appear before the Registry of this Court first on 19.12.2016 and on subsequent dates given by the office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeals then appellants- Vikram, Kamlesh and Deshraj Singh shall be released on bail and execution of their jail sentence shall remain suspended till the disposal of these appeals.Certified copy as per rules.

Cited provisions: Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code