1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the facts and circumstances of the case to contend that the High Court ought to have suspended the sentence and granted bail to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal before it. In particular, he brought to our notice the post-mortem report, wherein it is stated thus:

“No external injury was found. After opening the thoraco-abdominal cavity, the findings were noted in the columns concerned.

The lungs, liver and spleen were found in diseased condition. Cause of death is shock followed by chronic illness.”

The learned Counsel also submitted that the appellant is in custody for about one year and two months. He further submitted that hearing of the appeal will take sufficiently long time.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the State strongly opposed the grant of bail to the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. He also submitted that he has been in custody for only one year and two months; the appellant could renew his application for grant of bail, in case his appeal is not heard for a long time, after a period of two years. He further submitted that the presumption in regard to the dowry death is against the appellant. In short, the learned Counsel urged that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.

5. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the post-mortem report extracted above, we think it is just and appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail.

6. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The sentence is suspended, pending hearing of the criminal appeal before the High Court, and the appellant is enlarged on bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.