Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs State Of Assam And Anr on 5 August, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010205102024
2025:GAU-
AS:10118-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/954/2024
NABI HUSSAIN AND ANR
S/O JAFAR ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SILONGANI,
PO AND PS NAGAON,
DIST NAGAON, ASSAM
2: KERAMAT ALI
S/O IDRISH ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SILONGANI
PO AND PS NAGAON
DIST NAGAON ASSA
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:MD. MAINUL HOQUE
S/O LATE MATAB ALI
RESIDENT OF NO 1 MOLLAPATTY
PO AND PS NAGAON
DIST NAGAON ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS S S ZIA, MS S S ZIA (P-2)
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
Date : 05.08.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. B. Bhuyan,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspension of the sentence
and to release the applicants, i.e., the appellant Nos. 2 & 3, on bail during the
pendency of the appeal.
3. The counsel for the applicants submits that the reason for suspension of the
sentence is that the ocular evidence of the witnesses is not consistent with the
medical evidence. He also submits that the applicant No. 1, who is the appellant No. 2
in the appeal, suffers from Fistula and he has accordingly been operated upon on
08.01.2025. However, the said applicant No. 1 needs post-operative treatment, as the
same was not given to him. He accordingly prays that for medical reasons, the
applicant No. 1 should be granted bail. He further submits that there was a re-lapse of
Fistula on the applicant No. 1 in June, 2025. He also submits that the earlier
application made by the applicant, for suspending the sentence made under Section
389 Cr.P.C., had been rejected by this Court earlier on 08.01.2024.
4. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that the earlier
application for suspension of sentence had been rejected, on the ground that the
evidence of all the witnesses appeared to be in tandem with each other and as such,
there was no ground for suspension of the sentence. In respect of the applicant No. 1,
Nabi Hussain, Ms. Bhuyan submits that the required medical treatment would be
provided, if not already provided to him.
Page No.# 3/3
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. It is seen that the applicants and the other co-convicts had earlier submitted
application I.A.(Crl.) 657/2023, praying for suspending the sentence, pursuant to the
impugned judgment dated 31.05.2023, passed by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions
Judge No. 3, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 47(N)/2015, by which the applicants
had been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
7. This Court had rejected the earlier application of the applicants, vide order dated
08.01.2024, by holding that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses appeared to
be in tandem with each other and as such, it did not find any ground to suspend the
sentence.
8. In the present case also, we do not find any ground to suspend the sentence.
However, in view of the applicant No. 1 allegedly requiring medical treatment, the Jail
Authorities are directed to ensure that the required medical treatment is provided to
the respondent No. 1, if not already provided.
9. The application is accordingly disposed of by rejecting the application for
suspending the sentence.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
