Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010114542025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/555/2025 BIPIN KUMAR S/O SRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR, VILL AND P.S BAKHTIARPUR, DIST.- PATNA, BIHAR 2: VIRA MAHATO S/O LATE BASANTA MAHATO VILL.- GULAMAHIYA CHOK P.S. MOJIPUR NADDI DIST.- PATNA BIHA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : M PATHAK, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./171/2023 BIPIN KUMAR AND ANR. S/O DHARMENDRA KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PS BAKTIARPUR DIST PATNA BIHAR 2: VIRA MAHATO Page No.# 2/4 S/O LATE BASANTA MAHATO VILLAGE GULAMAHIYA CHOK PS MOJIPUR NADDI DIST PATNA BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : M PATHAK Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 03/02/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. M. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State. 2. The case of the applicants along with another convict namely, Suraj Kumar Roy is that they were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act vide judgment and order dated 09.03.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon, in Special (Nar) Case No.23(BGN) of 2022 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. 3. The applicants, besides filing the appeal, had also filed an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspension of the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court. The said application had however been rejected by this Court on Page No.# 3/4 26.09.2023. The application under Section 430 BNSS that had been filed by co- accused Suraj Kumar Roy had also been rejected vide order dated 05.10.2023. 4. Suraj Kumar Roy thereafter approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Criminal Appeal No.2642/2025. The same was disposed off by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.05.2025, by granting bail to Suraj Kumar Roy, on the ground that the Criminal Appeal that had filed by the appellant Suraj Kumar Roy was not likely to be heard in the near future and due to the fact that the antecedence of Suraj Kumar Roy had not been brought on record. 5. The counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants herein should be granted parity of the benefit provided by the Supreme Court to Suraj Kumar Roy. 6. Mr. M. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Bench can dispose of the matter on merit as the matter basically is with regard to suspension of sentence. 7. The learned APP, Assam, on the other hand, submits that as the matter is in the hearing stage and as some hearing has already been conducted, the reasons for granting bail to Suraj Kumar Roy cannot be applied to the applicants’ case herein. 8. In the case of Omprakash Sahni -vs- Jai Shankar Chaudhary and others, reported in MANU/SC/0511/2023, the Supreme Court has held that suspension conveys postponement or temporarily preventing a state of affairs from continuing. Thus, when we speak suspension of sentence after conviction, the idea is to defer or postpone the execution of the sentence. The purpose of postponement of sentence cannot be achieved by detaining the convict in jail. Hence, as a natural consequence of postponement of execution, the convict may be enlarged on bail until further orders. Page No.# 4/4 9. On considering the fact that the present application is basically an application for suspension of sentence, for which a natural consequence may be an order of enlargement on bail, we are of the view that the present application can be disposed of by us. 10. On considering the fact that the matter is already ready for hearing and has also been heard at some length, the prayer for grant of the benefit of parity for suspension of sentence in so far it relates to the applicants herein, is no longer valid. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 11. IA is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant