[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Dipankar Bhattacharjee vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 28 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010065922025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/348/2025
DIPANKAR BHATTACHARJEE
S/O DIPAK BHATTACHARJEE R/O HOUE NO 18 KANAKLATA PATH PS
DISPUR KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY PP ASSAM
2:SMTI RUBI DEVI
W/O BINOD PUNJIYAR R/O C/O KIRAN SARKAR HOUSE NO 14 LALGANESH
DEMP GALI MILAN NAGAR PS FATASIL AMBARI DIST KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM 781034
------------
Advocate for : MR. U K BARMAN
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Crl.A./123/2025
DIPANKAR BHATTACHARJEE
S/O DIPAK BHATTACHARJEE R/O HOUE NO 18 KANAKLATA
PATH PS DISPUR KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Page No.# 2/5
REP BY PP ASSAM
2:SMTI RUBI DEVI
W/O BINOD PUNJIYAR R/O C/O KIRAN SARKAR HOUSE NO
14 LALGANESH DEMP GALI MILAN NAGAR PS FATASIL
AMBARI DIST KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM 78103
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K BARMAN, MR H ALI,MR D PEGU,MR.
R KONWAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS
CURIAE (R2)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
28.11.2025
Heard Mr. U.K. Barman, learned counsel for the applicant. Also Heard Mr.
Sarfraz Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.J.
Boruah, learned Addl Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This I.A. has been preferred seeking suspension of the sentence imposed
by the learned Trial Court vide impugned Judgment dated 24.01.2025 and
Sentence Order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
cum Special Judge(POCSO) Kamrup(M), at Guwahati, in Sessions Case No.
567/2019 convicting the appellant, namely, Shri Dipankar Bhattacharjee under
Section 10 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO
Act) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo SI for 3
Page No.# 3/5
months.
3. Mr. U.K. Barman, 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. Boruah 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.
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:
Page No.# 4/5
(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 Order dated 24.01.2025 and
Sentence Order dated 29.01.2025 and the sentence is for a fixed period of 5
years.
10. Keeping in view the same and considered in the light of the decision of the
Page No.# 5/5
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 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with
one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO) Kamrup(M), Guwahati with a
condition that, in the event of dismissal of the connected Criminal Appeal No.
123/2025, the applicant shall surrender before the Trial Court to serve out the
remaining part of his 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
