Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010252802025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1279/2025 SRI MOHAN BORAH S/O LATE DIMBESWAR BORAH 2: SRI DUDU BORAH S/O LATE DIMBESWAR BORAH BOTH ARE R/O VILL.- RONGPURIA P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, In Crl.Rev.P./506/2025 SRI MOHAN BORAH S/O LATE DIMBESWAR BORAH 2: SRI DUDU BORAH S/O LATE DIMBESWAR BORAH Page No.# 2/6 BOTH ARE R/O VILL.- RONGPURIA P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : PUBALI SAIKIA, MR P CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 14.08.2026 Heard Mr. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an application under Section 438(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence and realization of fine and allow the accused/applicants to be released on bail. 3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was filed by one Marami Sakia on 18-06-2011 before the Officer-in-Charge, North Lakhimpur Police Station alleging inter-alia therein that on 17-06-2011 at about 8.30 p.m., while the informant’s husband was returning home after giving rice to his mother, the Page No.# 3/6 accused persons restrained him in front of their house and with a view to kill him, the accused/applicants No.1 gave a blow towards his neck with a sharp dao and as he bent down, the dao blow fell on his left cheek as a result he sustained grevious injury on his left cheek up to his teeth and the accused/applicants No.2 gave dao blow which feel on his right cheek as a result he sustained grevious injury. The accused/applicants also gave a sharp dao blow on his legs as a result of which he fell down from his bicycle. It is further stated in the FIR that the accused/applicants have also assaulted the husband of the informant with rod on his back, right hand etc. and also snatched away Rs.22,600/- from him. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, North Lakhimpur Police Station registered a case vide North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.317/2011 under Section 341/326/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and started investigation of the case. 4. The accused/applicant submitted that during the period of appeal, they were all along on bail and have never misused the liberty that has been granted to them by the Ld. Courts below but the learned Appellate Court after upholding the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court was pleased to issue notice to the accused/applicants and during the period of appeal, both the accused/applicants Page No.# 4/6 went to Arunachal for work and they were there for last 3 to 4 years and as such they did not have any knowledge about the disposal of the appeal, neither their engaged Counsel has informed anything about the disposal/dismissal of the appeal filed on their behalf, hence they were completely in dark with regard to issuance of any notice but the notice issued by the learned Trial Court was received by some of the family members, which was also not within their knowledge and as the accused/applicants failed to appear for surrendering before the learned Trial Court, hence the learned Trial Court below was pleased to issue NBWA against both the accused/applicants and on the strength of the NBWA, the accused/applicants were arrested and were produced before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court on their appearance was pleased to send them to judicial custody vide its order dated 09-07-2025 and since then the accused/applicants are languishing in jail, hence considering the same the accused/applicants may be allowed to go on bail till disposal of this revision petition. 5. It is stated that there is every likelihood of interference by this Hon'ble Court against the orders of conviction passed by the learned Courts below therefore the accused/applicants may be allowed to go on bail during the pendency of the present revision petition. Page No.# 5/6 6. In the light of the above facts, it is submitted that the applicant/appellant may be released on bail by such granting the sentence of 4 years R.I. imposed by the learned Trial Court. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant had placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in reported Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors., vs. State of Gujarat, in (1999) 4 SCC 421, wherein it has been held as follows:- “3. 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 endeavor 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 Page No.# 6/6 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." 8. From the above, it appears that the present is a case where the suspension of sentence is called for, considered on the touchstone of Bhagwam Rama Shinde Gosai (Supra). 9. In view of the above, the prayer for suspension of sentence and consequent bail is allowed. 10. It is directed that the remainder of the sentence shall remain suspended pending disposal of the revision and the Revisionist/Petitioners be released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- each with a surety of like amount each. 11. I.A. stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant