Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010163342025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/786/2025 SHAHIN UDDIN BARBHUIYA AND 6 ORS. SON OF NURUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA R/O VILLAGE NIZ KATIGORAH PT III P/O. KATIGORAH DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788805. 2: BODRUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA SON OF LATE FAIZUR RAHMAN 3: MOKLISUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA SON OF LATE FAIZUR RAHMAN 4: SHAB UDDIN BARBHUIYA SON OF MD NURUL ISLAM 5: MANIK UDDIN BARBHUIYA SON OF LATE MAHMOD ALI ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE NIZ KATIGORAH PT III DIST. CACHAR PIN-788805. 6: BAPPON UDDIN @ MOHI UDDIN BARBHUIYA SON OF NURUL ISLAM VILL. KATIGORAH PT III P/S. KATIGORAH DIST. CACHAR 7: DILWAR ISLAM BARBHUIYA @ MITHU SON OF MOHIBUR RAHMAN R/O VILLAGE SRIKONA PT II P/S. SILCHAR Page No.# 2/4 DIST. CACHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SAHIR AHMED BARBHUIYA SON OF SAMSUL HAQUE R/O VILLAGE NIZ KATIGORAH PT III P/S. KATIGORAH DIST. CACHAR PIN-788805. ------------ Advocate for : SABRISH AHMED Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant-appellants and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party- respondent no. 1, State of Assam. 2. The instant application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-appellants and for their release on bail. 3. The applicants as appellants, namely, [i] Shahin Uddin Barbhuiya [A-7]; [ii] Bodrul Islam Barbhuiya [A-2]; [iii] Moklisur Rahman Barbhuiya [A-3]; [iv] Shab Uddin Barbhuiya [A-4]; [v] Manik Uddin Barbhuiya [A-6]; [vi] Bappon Uddin @ Mohi Uddin Barbhuiya [A-8]; and [vii] Dilwar Islam Barbhuiya @ Mithu [A-9] have preferred the accompanying criminal appeal against a Judgment and Order Page No.# 3/4 dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in Sessions Case no. 307/2010, arising out of Katigorah Police Station Case no. 393/2009. 4. By the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2025, the present seven applicants-appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 323, Section 447 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. For the offence under Section 323, IPC, the applicants-appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with default stipulation. For the offence under Section 447, IPC, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with default stipulation. Upon holding them guilty under Section 147, IPC, the learned Trial Court has sentenced the applicants-appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with default stipulation. 5. The Trial Court has observed that the period undergone during jail custody shall be set off as per law and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 6. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants has submitted that the name of the opposite party-respondent no. 2 may be struck off. It is ordered accordingly at the risk and peril of the applicants-appellants. 7. Having considered the materials on record and the sentences passed against the applicants-appellants, this Court is of the considered view that the sentences passed against the applicants-appellants can be suspended till the disposal of the accompanying criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 269/2025. 8. It is accordingly ordered that the sentences passed against the applicants- Page No.# 4/4 appellants shall remain suspended till the disposal of the accompanying criminal appeal, which has already been admitted today, for hearing. It is further ordered that the applicants-appellants, named above, are to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 9. The interlocutory application stands disposed of in the afore-stated terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant