AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 189 wordsSatish Kumar Mittal, J.—I have heard counsel for the parties on the application u/s 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal, filed by applicant-appellant. This is a third application for suspension of sentenced filed by the appellant. Earlier his applications were declined on 21.9.2004 and 20.11.2004.
The applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years u/s 307 IPC, out of which he has undergone one year, one month and twenty five days.
The period of sentence undergone by the applicant has not been disputed by the counsel for the State.
This is 2004 appeal and its hearing is likely to take some time. In these circumstances, in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat, ) Apex Court Journal 529 (S.C.): 1999(4) SCC 421 and Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P., 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1017, the sentence imposed upon the applicant-appellant is suspended during the pendency of appeal subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Yamunanagar.