Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010181632026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/881/2026 SUBHASH DEY S/O LT. RAM DEY, R/O HOLONGAPAR GOHAIN GAON, P.S.- TEOK, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SANJIB BURAGOHAIN S/O SRI PRADIP BURAGOHAIN R/O MELENG GAYAN GAON P.S.- JORHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B HALDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 09.09.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspending the Page No.# 2/3 sentence being undergone by the applicant Subhash Dey, pursuant to his conviction and sentence by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Sessions Case No.172(J-J)/2018, vide the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2022. 3. The applicant's counsel submits that the evidence of the eyewitnesses PW- 13, 15 and 16 do not speak of the applicant assaulting the deceased. He also submits that due to the applicant suffering from some neurological disorder, the applicant should be released on bail, to enable him to seek proper medical attention and treatment outside the jail premises. He accordingly prays that the sentence should be suspended. 4. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that though the eyewitnesses may not have stated that the applicant Subhash Dey had assaulted the deceased, he was present along with the other two appellant and all three of them had fled after the assault had been made on the deceased. Thus, there was no infirmity with the conviction of the applicant/appellant under Section 302/34 IPC. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that with regard to the submission of the counsel for the applicant Subhash Dey that he is suffering from some neurological disorder, the jail authorities will ensure that proper medical treatment is given to the applicant, if his neurological problem warrants medical treatment from Government hospital Doctors. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Page No.# 3/3 7. On perusing the evidence, it appears that the applicant Subhash Dey had been together with the other appellants and was there during the assault made on the deceased. The act of fleeing from the place of occurrence along with the other two appellants is also stated in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses. Thus, the question of whether the applicant acted in collusion with the other appellants in furtherance of their common intention, prima facie appears to be correct. With regard to the submission made by the applicant’s counsel that the applicant is having some neurological disorder, we have perused the medical prescription provided to the applicant by the Jorhat Medical College & Hospital on 07.08.2026 and the same does not appear to show that there is any serious problem with the applicant. In any event if the applicant turns out to be ill even after the medicines that had been prescribed to him, have been consumed by him, the jail authority should ensure that the applicant gets proper medical treatment and examination, if required, after taking the advice of the jail doctor. 8. As the counsels for the applicant and the 2 other appellants in Crl.A(J) 106/2022 and Crl.A. 301/2022 have received their Paper Books and the matter has been fixed for final hearing 07.12.2026, we are not inclined to allow this present application. 9. The application is accordingly rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant