Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010165062025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/815/2025 KAMALENDU DEB @ KONU SON OF LATE KARUNAMOY DEB, R/O NAYABILL, P/S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM-788117. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:BROJOCHAND SINGHA SON OF LATE BACHA SINGH R/O SARBONTILLA P/S. SILCHAR P/O. CHATALA DIST. CACHAR ASSAM-78811 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS F AHMED, MR. S K GHOSH,MR S NATH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./290/2025 KAMALENDU DEB @ KONU SON OF LATE KARUNAMOY DEB R/O NAYABILL P/S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM-788117. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:BROJOCHAND SINGHA SON OF LATE BACHA SINGH R/O SARBONTILLA P/S. SILCHAR P/O. CHATALA DIST. CACHAR ASSAM-788117 ------------ Advocate for : MS F AHMED Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This interlocutory application under Section 430 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Kamalendu Deb @ Konu, praying for suspension of sentence imposed on the applicant by the judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Cachar, at Silchar in Sessions Case No. 87/2011. 3. By the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner was convicted under Section 304 Part (ii) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in-default of payment of fine, to undergo Page No.# 3/4 simple imprisonment for six months. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year and fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default 3 months. He was also convicted under Section 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 1000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has impugned the aforesaid judgment by filing the connected Criminal Appeal No. 290/2025 and he is hopeful of getting a favorable result in the said appeal. He further submits that only one prosecution witness has deposed against the present petitioner and his testimony is also contradicted. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been sentenced to a short-term sentence of seven years only, he may be allowed to go on bail as unless he may be allowed to go on bail and the execution of sentence imposed on him may be suspended during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal, as unless same is done, there is a likelihood of Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner becoming infructuous. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner on the basis of which the Trial court had convicted him by the impugned judgment and there is unlikelihood of him getting a favorable result in the connected criminal appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. 7. Since the connected criminal appeals has been admitted for hearing and the sentence imposed on the petitioner is for a short term period of seven years, if the sentence is allowed to run parallely during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal number 290/2025, there is a likelihood that for all material Page No.# 4/4 purposes, the appeal filed by the petitioner may become infructuous, as large number of criminal appeals are pending in this court. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of considered opinion that this is a fit case where in exercise of powers under Section 430 of the BNSS, the execution of sentence imposed by the impugned judgment may be stayed. This Court accordingly does the same. 9. Further, during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Session Judge (FTC) Cachar in Sessions Case No. 87/2011 with a condition that, in the event of dismissal of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 290/2025, the petitioner shall be surrendered before the Trial Court to serve out the remaining part of his sentence imposed by the impugned judgment. 10. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant