Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040017102025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/96/2025 Dora Duri Son of Late Dora Tapuk, permanent resident of Tajgi Village, PO Raka , PS Ziro, Keyi Panyor District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Donik Tayeng Son of Late Donik Tasing permanent resident of Pith Village PO Raka PS Ziro Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : T Taje, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Linked Case : Crl.A./24/2025 Dora Duri Age: 46 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Dora Tapuk permanent resident of Tajgi Village PO Raka PS Ziro Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Donik Tayeng Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Donik Tasing permanent resident of Pith Village PO Raka PS Ziro Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Tayum Son Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP and Anr: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 26.09.2025 Heard Mr. Tayum Son, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. Hage Laxmi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. The applicant has preferred an appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023, assailing the judgment & order, dated 28.07.2025, passed by the learned Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ziro, in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2024(Z), corresponding to G.R. No. 13/2020 arising out of Ziro P.S. Case No. 05/2020, whereby, the applicant/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3(three) months. 3. By this interlocutory application, the applicant has prayed for stay of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence during the pendency of the appeal. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Son, learned counsel for the applicant, that the appellant was on bail during trial and continued to remain on bail, and he has not violated the bail conditions or misused the liberty granted to him. It is further submitted that the appeal has already been admitted for hearing, and the appeal involved arguable points. It is further submitted that unless the sentence is suspended, the very purpose of filing the connected appeal will be frustrated. 5. Ms. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that since the appeal has already been admitted and there is no indication of the appellant having violated any bail conditions, therefore, she has no objection if the appellant is allowed to remain on earlier bail. Page No.# 3/3 6. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the appellant was on bail during trial and there is no material to suggest that he misused the liberty granted to him. The appeal has already been admitted and will take some time for final disposal. 7. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence imposed on the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant vide judgment & order dated 28.07.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ziro in Criminal Appeal No. 02/2024(Z), shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of 30(thirty) days from today. The appellant shall remain on the same bail as granted earlier subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 9. The prayer for stay of conviction is, however, declined. 10. With the above directions, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant