Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010172202026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/854/2026 SRI DIPAK MILI S/O SRI DEORAM MILI R/O VILLAGE MAGAM DULUNG P.O. AND P.S. JONAI DISTRICT DHEMAJI. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM. 2:HARISH PATIR S/O MANIK PATIR VILLAGE NAHARJUN PO JONAI DISTRICT DHEMAJI. ------------ Advocate for : MR T T MONI Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 21.08.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this appeal filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C, the applicant has prayed for suspension of sentence and for releasing him on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The applicant had prayed for suspension of the sentence that was imposed upon him by judgment and order dated 12.06.2026 by which the applicant was convicted under Section 354B of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years with fine and default stipulation. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has children and that his father is an old aged person and that there is no one to look after the family business. He submits with regard to the fact of the case that no independent witnesses were examined in the said case and on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix alone, the conviction was granted. 4. Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the victims statement was consistent before all the authorities and as such there is no scope for interference with the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. 5. However, it is seen from the judgment and order that when the victim reached the shop of the applicant, there were other persons present and none of the said persons were examined by the Trial Court. Further, it is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the applicant was on bail during the trial and that he always attended the Court on each date. Further, it is also seen that the applicant Page No.# 3/3 was sentenced only for a period of 4 years and since the hearing of the main appeal would take time for its disposal, this Court deems it fit to suspend the sentence imposed upon the applicant and to release him on bail during the pendency of the appeal, upon furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Dhemaji. 6. I.A. is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant