Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 21 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010228792024
2025:GAU-AS:15848
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1169/2024
SONI DEVI AND 2 ORS
W/O MONOHAR BIND
VILL - KHAWA
PS - MEDENI CHOWKI
DISTRICT - LAKHISAR, BIHAR
PIN - 811106
2: SITA DEVI
W/O PHULEN
VILL - KHAWA
PS - MEDENI CHOWKI
DISTRICT - LAKHISAR
BIHAR
PIN - 811106
3: RAVITA DEVI @ RABITA DEVI
W/O RAMESH MAHATA
R/O VILL BAHU BAGICHA BINTONI
PS - MEDENI CHOWKI
DISTRICT - LAKHISAR
BIHAR
PIN - 81110
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z ALAM, MR D SARMA,MS. S NAZNEEN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/6
Linked Case : Crl.A./398/2024
SONI DEVI AND 2 ORS
W/O MONOHAR VIND
VILL - KHAWA
PS - MEDENI CHOWKI
DISTRICT - LAKHISAR
BIHAR
PIN - 811106
2: SITA DEVI
W/O PHULEN
VILL - KHAWA
PS - MEDENI CHOWKI
DISTRICT - LAKHISAR
BIHAR
PIN - 811106
3: RAVITA DEVI @ RABITA DEVI
W/O RAMESH MAHATA
R/O VILL - BAHU BAGICHA BINTONI
PS - MEDENI CHOWKI
DISTRICT - LAKHISAR
BIHAR
PIN - 851213
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR Z ALAM
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
21.11.2025
This I.A. has been preferred seeking suspension of the sentence imposed by
the learned Trial Court vide Judgment & Order dated 12.04.2024 in Special
NDPS Case No.171/2022, convicting the applicants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of
the NDPS Act and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months each.
2. Mr. Z. Alam, 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/applicants as aforesaid.
3. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that
the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants 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.
Page No.# 4/6
5. 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.
6. 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."
7. 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
Page No.# 5/6
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.
8. In the instant case, I have perused the material on record. The applicants
have been in jail since their conviction vide Judgment dated 12.04.2024 and the
sentence is for a fixed period of 5 years.
9. 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.
10. Further, during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal, the
applicants are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each
of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge,
Karimganj in Special NDPS Case No.171/2022 with a condition that, in the
event of dismissal of the connected Criminal Appeal No.398/2024, the applicants
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
Page No.# 6/6
Appellate Court.
11. The Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
