Gauhati High Court
Pankaj Ghosh vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 24 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010149232024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/728/2024
PANKAJ GHOSH
S/O PHONI DAS, R/O NEW COLONY, P.S.- SLICHAR, DIST.- CACHAR,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.
2:SUDHANGSHU RANJAN DAS
S/O LATE SURESH CHANDRA DAS
R/O NEW COLONY
TARAPUR
P.S.- SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BISWAS (LEGAL AID COUNSEL),
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : Crl.A./246/2024
PANKAJ GHOSH
S/O PHONI DAS
R/O NEW COLONY
P.S.- SLICHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM.
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/5
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY P.P.
ASSAM.
2:SUDHANGSHU RANJAN DAS
S/O LATE SURESH CHANDRA DAS
R/O NEW COLONY
TARAPUR
P.S.- SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. S BISWAS (LEGAL AID COUNSEL)
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
24.11.2025
This I.A. has been preferred seeking suspension of the sentence imposed by
the learned Trial Court vide Judgment & Order dated 29.02.2024 passed by
the Learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 27/2016
convicting the appellant under Section 304B of IPC sentencing him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to
undergo SI for another three months.
2. Mr. S. Biswas, learned Legal Aid 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.
3. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.J. Borua has
Page No.# 3/5
submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt.
4. The learned Legal Aid 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.
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.
Page No.# 4/5
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
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 applicant
has been in jail since their conviction vide Judgment dated 29.02.2024 and the
sentence is for a fixed period of 7 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
Page No.# 5/5
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 Sessions Judge,
Cachar, Silchar with a condition that, in the event of dismissal of the connected
Criminal Appeal No. 246/2024, 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.
11. The Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
