Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040015672025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/91/2025 Hage Chailyang and Anr Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Hage Kojee resident of Hari Village Po and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Smti Hage Meena Age: 51 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Hage Chailyang resident of Hari Village PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by the PP of AP 2:Smti Ngilyang Yana Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Wife of Late Ngilyang Sai resident of Medical Road Hapoli PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Rajesh Sonar Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP and Anr: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 12.09.2025 Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the applicants, who submits that by filing this interlocutory application, the applicants pray for suspension of the sentence imposed upon them vide judgment and order dated 06.08.2025 which was signed on 14.08.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Court, Ziro in Sessions Case No.31/2020 (Z), corresponding to Ziro P.S Case No.79/2007, convicting the applicants under Sections 304 Part-II/325/342 IPC. On their conviction, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03(three) years with fine of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) for conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 02(two) years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) for conviction under Section 325 IPC and simple imprisonment for 06(six) months without fine for conviction under Section 342 IPC and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have every chance to succeed in the appeal and they were on bail during the trial. He also submits that the learned Trial Court have even after convicting and sentencing the applicants have granted bail to them vide common order dated 14.08.2025. But the bail was only for a period of one month. He therefore submits that the impugned judgment and Page No.# 3/3 order be suspended final consideration of the connected appeal. 3. Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh appears for the State and submits that ordinarily bail is granted when there is no likelihood of the appeal being completed in a short time. He also refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in Atul @ Asuthosh –vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2024) Supreme (SC) 880. 4. Submission is made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and also the authority relied upon has been perused. 5. Having regard to the fact that the applicants were on bail during the trial proceedings and even after the conviction and sentence the learned Trial Court had granted them bail, which of course was for a limited period of one month and also having regard to the nature of the offence and the sentence imposed upon the applicants, this Court is of the view that pending final consideration of the appeal, the impugned judgment and order be suspended. It is ordered accordingly. 6. The applicants are allowed to remain on bail on the same terms and conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court vide common order dated 14.08.2025. 7. Interlocutory application stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant