Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 22 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 5 January, 2026

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                 Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010275272025




                                                          undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)


                             I.A.(Crl.)/1384/2025

         TAHER ALI AND ANR
         S/O SALIM ALI
         VILL. TARKHUTI
         P.S. DIMAKUCHI
         DIST. UDALGURI
         ASSAM.

         2: SUKUR ALI
         S/O AKRAM ALI
         VILL. TARKHUTI
          P.S. DIMAKUCHI
          DIST. UDALGURI
         ASSAM.
         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
         REPRESENTED BY THE PP
         ASSAM.

         2:MD IKBAL HASSAN
         S/O MD. MAHTAB ALI
          R/O VILL. BANSERIA
          P.O. AND P.S. TANGLA
          DIST. UDALGURI
         ASSAM
          PIN 784521
          ------------
         Advocate for : MR. I CHOUDHURY
         Advocate for : PP
         ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
                                                                                        Page No.# 2/3

                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                              ORDER

05.01.2026

Heard Mr. R.L. Chutia, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party no. 1 State of Assam.

2. The instant application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the applicants-appellants and for their release on bail.

3. The applicants as the appellants have preferred the accompanying appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 450/2025 against a Judgment dated 18.11.2025 and an Order on sentence dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri ['the Trial Court'] in Sessions [T-II] Case no. 18/2025. By the Judgment and Order on sentence, the Trial Court has convicted both the applicants-appellants for the offence under Section 305[e] r/w Section 3[5] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS], 2023. The applicants-appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another month each.

4. It is noticed that during the period of investigation/inquiry/trial, the applicants-appellants have spent a period of 200 days in custody. On the date of passing the impugned Judgment on 18.11.2025, the applicants-appellants were taken into custody and the Order on sentence was passed on 20.11.2025. Since 18.11.2025, the applicants-appellants are in custody till date.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants-appellants have pointed out that there are certain discrepancies and lapses in the prosecution case which would entitle the applicants-appellants for acquittal, at least on benefit of doubt. Moreover, the applicants-appellants have spent more than 250 days in custody till date. He has further submitted that the alleged theft was not in connection with any property of Government or a local authority and the same would not attract the ingredients of the offence defined under Section 305[e], BNS.

Page No.# 3/3

6. The applicants-appellants have already spent a period of more than 250 days till date. 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. Taking into consideration the evidence/materials on record and the fact that the applicants- appellants have already spent a period of more than one 200 days of sentence, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants-appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of the execution of the sentence passed against the applicants-appellants.

8. It is, therefore, ordered that pending disposal of the accompanying criminal appeal, execution of the sentence passed against the applicants-appellants shall remain suspended and the applicants-appellants are allowed to be released on fresh bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

9. The interlocutory application is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant