[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 16 December, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010117992025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/638/2025
SRI DAYANANDA DAS AND ORS
S/O LATE MANORANJAN DAS, VILL.- TAUPARA, P.O. AND P.S.- BAKULIA,
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM.
2: BINODINI DAS @ BANOY DAS
WO LATE MANORANJAN DAS
VILL.- TAUPARA
P.O. AND P.S.- BAKULIA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM.
3: BIRESH DAS
S/O LATE MANORANJAN DAS
VILL.- TAUPARA
P.O. AND P.S.- BAKULIA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.
2:DIJENDRA CH. DAS
S/O LATE SACHIMOHAN DAS
VILL.- PUB BHALUKMARI
Page No.# 2/5
P.O. AND P.S.- LANKA
DIST.- NAGAON
PIN- 782446
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SHOME,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. P MAZUMDER (R1)
Linked Case : Crl.A./274/2022
DAYANANDA DAS AND 2 ORS.
S/O LATE MANORANJAN DAS
VILL.- TAUPARA
P.O. AND P.S.- BAKULIA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM.
2: BINODINI DAS @ BANOY DAS
WO LATE MANORANJAN DAS
VILL.- TAUPARA
P.O. AND P.S.- BAKULIA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM.
3: BIRESH DAS
S/O LATE MANORANJAN DAS
VILL.- TAUPARA
P.O. AND P.S.- BAKULIA
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM.
VERSUS
Page No.# 3/5
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY P.P.
ASSAM.
2:DIJENDRA CH. DAS
S/O LATE SACHIMOHAN DAS
VILL.- PUB BHALUKMARI
P.O. AND P.S.- LANKA
DIST.- NAGAON
PIN- 782446.
------------
Advocate for : MR. M A MONDAL
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 16.12.2025
Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel for the applicant-appellants; Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam; and Mr.
P. Mazumder, learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent no. 2 are present.
2. The instant application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the
applicant-appellants and for their release on bail.
3. The applicants as appellants have preferred the accompanying criminal appeal,
Criminal Appeal no. 274/2022 against a Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the
Court of Sessions, Karbi Anglong at Diphu ['the Trial Court', for short] in Sessions Case no.
28/2017 [New] [Sessions Case no. 133/2015 [Old]]. By the Judgment and Order dated
13.09.2022, the Trial Court had convicted the applicant-appellants for the offence under
Section 304B, Indian Penal Code [IPC] read with Section 34, IPC and all of them have been
Page No.# 4/5
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 [seven] years.
4. Mr. Shome, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellants has submitted that
the informant was the father of the deceased and his evidence was hearsay in nature. There
were no eye witnesses to the alleged incident other than the family members of the in-laws
of the deceased. None of the eleven prosecution witnesses had seen the incident.
5. Mr. Shome has further submitted that during the period of investigation, the applicant-
appellant no. 1 was in custody for a period of three months and two days, whereas, the other
two applicant-appellants were not arrested. Since the delivery of the impugned Judgment and
Order dated 13.09.2022, all the applicant-appellants are in incarceration till date. He has
further submitted that the applicant-appellant no. 1 has already spent more than three years
and six months, which is more than half of the period of the substantive sentence. The other
two applicant-appellants have spent more than three years and three months of the sentence
period.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of
Gujarat reported in [1999] 4 SCC 421, has held that when a convicted person is sentenced to
a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension
of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional
circumstances.
7. Having regard to the projections made on behalf of the applicant-appellants and also
to the period of sentence already undergone by the applicant-appellants, this Court is of the
considered view that the applicant-appellants have made out a prima facie case for
suspension of execution of the sentence pending disposal of the appeal, which has already
been admitted for hearing.
8. It is, therefore, ordered that pending disposal of the appeal, execution of the sentence
passed against the applicant-appellants shall remain suspended and the applicant-appellants
are allowed to be released on bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with
one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
Page No.# 5/5
9. The interlocutory application stands disposed of in the afore-said terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
