Dhananjay Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4891 Gua

                                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010136512022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/382/2022

             DHANANJAY DAS
             S/O LATE PRABHAT CH. DAS RESIDENT OF CHIPONSILA, PS AND DIST
             BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783385



             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
             REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

             2:JITEN RAY
              S/O LATE MONESWAR RAY
             RESIDENT OF SIPANSILA
              PS AND DIST BONGAIGOAN
             ASSAM. 78338

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M U MAHMUD

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM


                                 BEFORE
                        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
                                             ORDER

12.12.2022 Heard Mr M U Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr P S Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This is an application filed by the applicant/appellant under Section 389 (1) of the CrPC. 1973, praying for suspension of sentence dated 17.06.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Page No.# 2/3

Bongaigaon, in Session Case No. 59 (BGN)/2019, praying for enlarging him to go on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the charge was framed under Section 302 IPC, but after completion of trial, the accused appellant was convicted under Section 304- Part-I IPC, and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default stipulation.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that there are lots of contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses along with medical evidence, by referring the evidence of witnesses, that the ocular evidence did not support the medical evidence, as a result of which, there is every possibility of acquittal in the case.

5. It is also submitted that the investigation since inception of the case was very defective, as such, bail may be granted to the accused.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case-laws:-

1) (2012) 8 SCC 263; (Dayal Singh & Ors v. State of Uttaranchal)

2) (2002) 9 SCC 663; (State of Haryana vs. Jai Parkash and Others)

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are two eye witnesses in the case and PW-2 and PW3 have supported the medical evidence. Their statements were recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which corroborated their evidence in the Court and they are all along consistent in their evidence, regarding involvement of the accused in committing the crime. Hence, the accused has been rightly convicted by the trial Court and at this stage, accused applicant is not entitled for bail, because the case against the accused has been proved by the eye- witnesses as well as medical evidence.

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court.

9. It is seen that the deceased was in jail, since the date of delivery of judgment on 17.06.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that earlier during investigation he was in jail for 3 (three) months, so total, for around 9 (nine) months, the accused has been detained in custody.

Page No.# 3/3

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the incident occurred due to sudden fight between the accused and the deceased. The accused is unmarried and aged about 33 years and he is the only son of his mother. His father had already expired. The age of his mother is about 61 years. His mother is totally dependant on his son.

11. Considering the factual matrix of the case as well as the fact that though the accused was on bail, he was regularly attending the Court during trial.

12. In view of above, bail prayer of the accused is allowed by suspending sentence as above. Accordingly, the applicant/appellant, Dhananjay Das, is allowed to go on bail, in connection with Sessions Case No. 59 (BGN)/2019, on his furnishing bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. The learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon is at liberty to impose any condition, if it deems appropriate at the time of releasing the applicant/appellant.

13. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant