Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010130432025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./59/2025 SUTU HEMRON S/O. LATE SAMBU HEMRON RESIDENT OF VILL. NO. 2 BORBIL P/O. AND P/S. DIGBOI DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. B HUSSAIN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/714/2025 SRI SUTU HEMRON SON OF LATE SAMBHU HEMRON RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO. 2 BORBILL PO AND PS DIGBOI DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. I A TALUKDAR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 22.09.2025 Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor/respondent No.1. 2. This application has been filed under Section 430(1) BNSS for suspending sentence and bail for the applicant, who was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Margherita, Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 15(M)/2019. 3. The applicant has filed criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence being Criminal Appeal No. 59/2025 which has been admitted and has joined the queue for hearing before the Single Bench of this Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the convict appellant was convicted under Section 324/307 IPC. For conviction u/s 324 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo R/I for two years. Further, for conviction u/s 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergone R/I for four years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (i/d R/I for three months). Both the sentences Page No.# 3/5 were directed to run concurrently. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State objecting to prayer for bail, submits that there is no apparent infirmity in the impugned judgment and order and therefore, considering the nature of the offence also, the bail may not be considered at this stage. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that so far, the applicant has undergone detention since 26.12.2024 and seeks bail at this stage. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 211. 6. The relevant para 3, wherein reference was to another judgment on the subject was made may be reproduced herein below – “This Court has held in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421 that when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short-term imprisonment the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception and be put forward for such rejection. In such case also every endeavour should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purposes, infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned. It does not mean that the appellant should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be a danger to the society or any other similar difficulties.” Page No.# 4/5 7. Thus, for short term sentences, the suspension of sentence should be the norm and it should be refused, if there are significant factors indicating to the contrary. As the sentences have been imposed concurrently, the convict appellant will have to undergo R/I for four years, unless remitted earlier. The said sentence would be in my considered view a little above a short term sentence. Considering the fact that as far as jail sentence is concerned, under the present laws – at the other end of spectrum, lies sentence of non-remittable life imprisonment. It cannot be denied that considering the pendency of criminal appeal including several old pending ones waiting in the queue for their turn for hearing – there may not be immediate prospect of disposal of the appeal. The convicted appellant is stated to be already undergone 272 days, ever since he was convicted and sentenced. 8. Considering the above aspect of the matter and to meet/mitigate the risks of the convict appellant undergoing a substantial part his sentence before his appeal comes up for hearing – I deem it prudent to grant bail to the convict appellant in this case, subject to suitable conditions. 9. Accordingly, the Execution of order of sentence dated 26.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-1), Margherita, Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 15(M)/2019, shall stand suspended till disposal of appeal and accordingly, the applicant, namely Sutu Hemron, shall be released on bail on Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Further the following conditions are imposed – (i) The applicant shall not abscond; Page No.# 5/5 (ii) That the applicant shall be available to receive the appellate judgment; (iii) The applicant shall appear before the learned trial court once in two months; (iv) The learned trial court shall be at liberty to fix specific dates for the same and also modify the time frame fixed; (v) The applicant shall not in any manner cause any harm to the informant or the victim; (vi) The applicant shall not cause any harassment or harm to any of the witnesses who might have adduced evidence during the trial; 10. In case of any violation of the bail conditions, the learned prosecution or informant side shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail; 11. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending criminal appeal. 12. In view of the above, interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant