I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this is repeating things that have already been said.
Bashir has not escaped jail due to the woman not being vulnerable. Indeed, the fact the judge concluded she was not particularly vulnerable has not affected the sentence at all.
Bashir was convicted of ABH according to reports.
Under the sentencing guidelines the judge first has to consider the level of harm. The reported remarks suggest that the injuries caused were not serious in the context of the offence (i.e. this was not close to GBH) and that this particular victim was not "particularly vulnerable" (the phrase used by the sentencing guidelines). There is, however, repeated assault on the same victim, so this falls into the higher level of harm. Note that some of those proclaiming outrage appear to be unaware that judges are required by the sentencing guidelines to separate the "particularly vulnerable" from those who are just vulnerable. If the judge did say, as reported, "I am not convinced she was a vulnerable person" that was wrong. However, if he said, "I am not convinced she was a particularly vulnerable person" that would be in line with the sentencing guidelines.
The judge next has to consider culpability. A weapon has been used so this falls into the higher culpability bracket. This means we are looking at a category 1 offence. It is clear from the sentence passed that the judge placed it in category 1 - the sentence would have been lower if it was category 2 or 3.
For a category 1 offence the sentencing range is 1-3 years custody with a starting point of 18 months. The judge must then look at aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the actual sentence. This appears to be a first conviction so that is a mitigating factor but there are clearly a number of aggravating factors present.
Bashir pleaded guilty so the sentence would be reduced by between 10% and one third depending on how early in the process he first pleaded guilty. The actual sentence was 18 months so the judge decided that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors. Before the discount for pleading guilty the sentence would have been 20 months, 24 months or 27 months - without knowing exactly when he first entered a guilty plea I can't say which.
So the actual sentence (ignoring the fact it is suspended) appears to be fairly normal for this particular offence.
As the sentence is under 2 years it is open to the judge to suspend it. This appears to have been a first offence which increases the likelihood that it would be suspended. The question is whether the alleged offer from Leicestershire played any part in the judge's decision to suspend. As that claim has fallen apart the judge could re-open sentencing. If he does not do so it is also possible that the CPS could appeal against the sentence. I doubt an appeal would change the length of the sentence significantly but it may reverse the decision to suspend it.
You may disagree with the sentencing guidelines but the judge has to follow them. The judge can only step outside the guidelines in particularly unusual cases. Sadly, this case does not qualify.
The sentence would have been higher if the offence had been GBH or attempted murder but the judge can only sentence the offender for the offence for which he has been convicted. It is not the judge's fault that Bashir was not charged with a more serious offence.