Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 18 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010218342024
2025:GAU-AS:12924
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/982/2024
TAZNUR ALI
S/O. MD. BASER ALI, R/O. VILL.- GURMOW CHANDMARI, P/S. TAMULPUR,
DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:SIBAN MALLICK
S/O. LATE BHUBAN MALLICK
R/O. SARASWATI COLONEY
WARD NO. 6
RANGIA
P/O. RANGIA
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781354
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S R BARBHUIYA, MR. N HAQUE,MR K UDDIN,MR M
HUSSAIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR. S R BARBHUIYA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, AMICUS CURIAE, R2
Linked Case : Crl.A./337/2024
TAZNUR ALI
S/O. MD. BASER ALI
Page No.# 2/5
R/O. VILL.- GURMOW CHANDMARI
P/S. TAMULPUR
DIST. BAKSA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM.
2:SIBAN MALLICK
S/O. LATE BHUBAN MALLICK
R/O. SARASWATI COLONEY
WARD NO. 6
RANGIA
P/O. RANGIA
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN-781354.
------------
Advocate for : MR. S R BARBHUIYA
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
18.09.2025
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant. Also
heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. S. Das,
learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondent no.2.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(2) of BNSS,
2023 by the applicant, namely, Taznur Ali, praying for suspension of the
execution of sentence imposed on him by the judgment dated 11.09.2024,
passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO, Rangia in Special (POCSO) Case No.
Page No.# 3/5
17/2017.
3. By the aforesaid judgment, the applicant was convicted under Section 7
and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in-default of
payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two years. He was
also convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- and in-default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has
impugned the aforesaid judgment in the connected Criminal Appeal No.
982/2024 and is hopeful of getting a favorable result in the said appeal. The
learned counsel applicant submits that there are inherent contradictions in the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and the trial court has ignored such
contradictions.
5. He further submits that since the sentence imposed on the petitioner on
the applicant is a short-term sentence of only 4(four) years, unless the
execution of sentence imposed on the applicant by the impugned judgment is
stayed during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal. The purpose of
filing of the appeal, for all practical purposes would become infructuous so far
as the applicant is concerned. Hence, he prays for staying the execution of
sentence during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal and also allow
the petitioner to go on bail during such period.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the
Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2 have opposed the suspension of
Page No.# 4/5
sentence during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal and have
submitted that there are sufficient materials in the records in the case before us
against the present applicant and the trial court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the applicant on the basis of the evidence available on the record.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides
and have gone through the materials available on the record. In this case, the
connected Criminal Appeal No. 337/2024 has already been admitted for hearing.
8. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the sentence imposed
on the applicant is a short-term imprisonment, the Apex Court, in the case of
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421
has observed that in case where a person is sentenced to a short-term
imprisonment in normal rule is that when his appeal is pending, the sentence
should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception. So, in the
instant case, no such exceptional reasons could be shown by the prosecution
side.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that as considering the
number of criminal appeal pending before this court, there is unlikelihood of
early disposal of the connected criminal appeal and in such a case, if sentence
imposed on the applicant is allowed to run during the pendency of the appeal,
the appeal may itself for all practical purposes become infructuous.
10. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case, where
by invoking the powers under Section 430 of the BNSS, the execution of
sentence imposed on the applicant may be suspended, which this court hereby
does.
11. During this period, the applicant is also allowed to go on bail of Rs.
Page No.# 5/5
30,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the
learned Special Judge, Rangia, with a condition that in the event of dismissal of
the connected Criminal Appeal No. 337/2024, he shall surrender before the trial
court to serve out the remaining period of the sentence imposed on him by the
impugned judgment.
12. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
