Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010102842025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/674/2025 SAYNA BEGUM BARBHUIYA W/O MD. FARIZ UDDIN BARBHUIYA R/O VILL.- UTTAR KANCHANPUR P.O.- JANAKIBAZAR P.S.- PANCHGRAM DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE P.P. ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A K HANNAN Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 25.06.2025 Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent, State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. The instant interlocutory application is preferred by the applicant-revision petitioner seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against him and for his release on bail. 3. The applicant as the revision petitioner has preferred the accompanying criminal revision petition against a Judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in G.R. Case no. 821/2016 and a Judgment dated 20.03.2021 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi [‘the Appellate Court’, for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 66/2019. By the Judgment dated 15.11.2019, the learned Trial Court convicted the applicant-revision petitioner for the offences under Section 448, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 323, IPC and the applicant-revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation, under Section 448, IPC. For the offence under Section 323, IPC, the applicant-revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. The Appellate Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence by the Judgment dated 20.03.2021. 4. It is contended that though the revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 323, IPC for causing hurt, the alleged victim was never been examined by a doctor, meaning thereby, there is no medical evidence to support the charge of Section 323, IPC. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid contention and after perusal of the contents of the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, this Court finds prima facie force in the contention advanced by the applicant- Page No.# 3/3 revision petitioner. 6. In the above view of the matter, it is ordered that the execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-revision petitioner shall remain suspended till the disposal of the accompanying criminal appeal, Crl.Rev.Pet. no. 235/2025, which has already been admitted today. Consequently, the applicant- revision petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 7. The instant application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 8. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of considering the prayer for suspension of execution of the sentence and grant of bail to the applicant-revision petitioner and the same shall not be construed as observations made with regard to the merits of the accompanying criminal revision petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant