Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010084112026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/507/2026 DHIRAJ DAS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR A.K. HAJONG Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : --07.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023, the applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence and for allowing him to go Page No.# 2/3 on bail. The Judgment and Order by which, the sentence was imposed upon the applicant was passed on 06.11.2025, by which the applicant was convicted under Section 436 of the IPC and was sentence to undergo SI for a period of 5 (five) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and it default for payment of the fine, the applicant was further directed to undergo SI for a period of another 2 (Two) months. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, although two circumstances were considered against the applicant to the effect that, witnesses have seen him near the place of occurrence when house was set on fire and the other witness, who had a Pottery Workshop has shouted that it was the applicant and another, who had burned his shade, but he submits that there were no materials/evidences showing that it was the applicant who had set the house on fire and that noting was seized from him, no article which can set a house on fire. He further submits that the applicant was sentenced for incarceration period of 5 (Five) years and that the applicant had already spend 10 (Ten) months in the jail while serving the sentence and that one month during investigation. 4. Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned APP for the State, submits that the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the fact that, it was the petitioner and the other absconded accused person, who had set the house and the Pottery shed on fire. He further submits that it is not a case that the appeal cannot be heard within the 5 (five) years’ incarceration period. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the counsels, more so, in view of the fact, that chain of circumstances are not found to be complete, Page No.# 3/3 showing that the applicant was responsible for causing fire to the house and shed, this Court deems it fit to suspend the sentence imposed upon the applicant by Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Sessions Case No. 46/2014 till the disposal of the appeal. The applicant is also allowed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Kamrup. 6. The I.A. is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant