Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030003872023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/39/2023 Sh. Mustaqur Rahman H/No.5, Anjali Path, Survey, Guwahati, P.O. and P.S. Hatigaon, District Kamrup (Metropolitan), Assam, PIN- 781038 VERSUS State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl2:Sh. B. Lalnghaklian Advocate for the Petitioner : A H Borbhuiya Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram, for R1 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 24.07.2025 Heard Ms. K. Venisia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By way of this application, the applicant i.e. Mr. Mustaqur Rahman, is praying for bail and suspension of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 02.06.2023, passed by the learned Special Page No.# 2/5 Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Mizoram in SR (PCA) No. 04/2018 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 420, 468, 471, 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), read with Section 120B of the said Code and Sections 13(1) (d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120B of the IPC, and the impugned order dated 05.06.2023, whereby the applicant was sentenced thereof to undergo imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and in default to undergo imprisonment for another 5 years each for offence under Section 403 read with Section 120B of the IPC, Section 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC, Section 468 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the IPC with fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and in default imprisonment for another 5 years. All the sentences except fine were to run concurrently. 3. It appears that the applicant was arrested on 22.02.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody and even on the day of delivery of the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 passed in SR (PCA) No. 04/2018 by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Mizoram. It appears that by the impugned conviction and sentence, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo a fixed period of imprisonment. In Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 211, the Apex Court emphasized that in a given case when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short-term imprisonment, the normal rule is that when the appeal is pending, the sentence should be Page No.# 3/5 suspended and rejection is only by way of exception and be put forward for such rejection. Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as hereunder:- "This Court has held in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat 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 endeavor 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 purpose, infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned. It does not mean that the appellate court should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be a danger to the society or any other similar difficulties." 4. In the case of Atul alias Asutosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 663, the Apex Court has held that when there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing the entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted. In fact, the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment also expressed its opinion that such cases should not be required to be brought before the Apex Court. Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as hereunder:- "Before parting with order, we must note here that notwithstanding several decisions of this Court holding that when there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted, we find that in several deserving cases, bail is being denied. Such cases should never be required to be brought before this Court." Page No.# 4/5 5. In the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421, the Apex Court have said that when a person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he file an appeal, any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the Appellate Court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Judgment reads as hereunder:- “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. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of a limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when a motion for expeditious hearing of the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux of time. When the appellate court finds that due to practical reasons such appeals cannot be disposed of expeditiously the appellate court must bestow special concern in the matter of suspending the sentence so as to make the appeal right, meaningful and effective. Of course, appellate courts can impose similar conditions when bail is granted." 6. Reading of the aforesaid Judgments, it is absolutely clear that when an appeal is pending against the conviction and sentence where the sentence is a fixed short term of imprisonment, the Appellate Court should liberally consider the prayer of bail and suspension of the aforesaid conviction and sentence, and only if an exceptional case is made out, a rejection may be given. Page No.# 5/5 7. In the present case, no such exception has been brought to the notice of this Court, nor has this Court seen on perusal of the materials available on record. That apart, the grounds of appeal appear to be prima facie substantial and good. 8. Accordingly, the operation of the Judgment & Order dated 02.06.2023, convicting the applicant therein, and the sentence order dated 05.06.2023, passed thereof, by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Mizoram, in SR (PCA) No. 04/2018, shall remain suspended till the disposal of the connected criminal appeal. 9. This Court also allows the applicant Mustaqur Rahman to be released on bail, on furnishing a bail-bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two suitable sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Mizoram. 10. The interlocutory application accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant