[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
P.S. And P.O. - Gohpur vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 1 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010277712024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/629/2025
ANADI DAS
S/O - LT DEBEN DAS
R/O - NAYA GHAGRA JOYPURIA LINE
P.S. AND P.O. - GOHPUR
DIST - BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN - 784168
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY PP
ASSAM
2:MONJU DAS
D/O - SRI SANU DAS
R/O - NAYA GHAGRA JOYPURIA LINE
P.S. AND P.O. - GOHPUR
DIST - BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN - 784168
------------
Advocate for : MR. L GOGOI
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Crl.A./216/2025
Page No.# 2/5
ANADI DAS
S/O - LT DEBEN DAS
R/O - NAYA GHAGRA JOYPURIA LINE,
P.S. AND P.O. - GOHPUR
DIST - BISWANATH, ASSAM
PIN - 784168
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM
2:MONJU DAS
D/O - SRI SANU DAS
R/O - NAYA GHAGRA JOYPURIA LINE
P.S. AND P.O. - GOHPUR
DIST - BISWANATH
ASSAM
PIN - 78416
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L GOGOI,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. B SARMA, LEGAL AID
COUNSEL, R2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
01.12.2025
Heard Mr. L. Gogoi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.J.
Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. B. Sharma,
learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. This I.A. has been preferred seeking suspension of the sentence imposed
Page No.# 3/5
by the learned Trial Court vide Judgment & Order dated 30.08.2024 passed by
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali, Assam in
Special(POCSO) Case No. 22/2016 convicting the appellant under Section 4
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and
sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo RI for a period of 3 months.
3. Mr. L. Gogoi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are
glaring errors of law as well as on facts committed by the learned Trial Court
while convicting and sentencing the accused/applicant as aforesaid.
4. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.J. Baruah has
submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2001) 9
SCC 211, wherein it has been held that the normal rule is that when the appeal
of a person convicted and sentenced is pending, the sentence passed on him
should be suspended unless any exceptional reason existing therein requires the
denial of the same.
6. Reference was made to Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
when a person is sentenced to a short-term imprisonment, the normal rule is
that pending disposal of the appeal, the sentence should be suspended and
rejection is only by way of exception.
Page No.# 4/5
7. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners
Vs. Union of India &Ors, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held as follows:
"15. We, therefore, direct as under:
(i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under the Act prescribing a
punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be
released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the
punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is
charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment.
If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount
shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum
fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned
with two sureties for like amount.
ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act
providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be
released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in
no case be less than Rs 50,000 with two sureties for like amount."
8. In Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, 2025 INSC 190, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the above Judgment does not take away the
power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a
prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. It was further held
that in the case of fixed-term sentences, if the courts start adopting a rigid
approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the
final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a
violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal.
9. In the instant case, I have perused the material on record. The applicant
has been in jail since his conviction vide Judgment and Order dated
Page No.# 5/5
30.08.2024 and the sentence is for a fixed period of 10 years.
10. Keeping in view the same and considered in the light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar (Supra), I do not find any exceptional
reason requiring denial of suspension of sentence, even though the applicants
have not spent an unduly long period behind bars. Hence, I am of the
considered opinion that this is a fit case where the execution of the remaining
part of the sentence imposed by the impugned Judgment may be suspended. It
is accordingly so ordered.
11. Further, during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal, the
applicant is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety of like
amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Court of Special Judge
(POCSO), Biswanath, Biswanath Chariali, Assam with a condition that, in the
event of dismissal of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 216/2025, the applicant
shall surrender before the Trial Court to serve out the remaining part of their
sentence imposed by the impugned judgment or as may be directed by the
Appellate Court.
12. The Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
