Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010109532025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./48/2026 SRI SANTANU NANDAN MAZUMDER S/O LATE SARADENDU SEKHAR MAZUMDAR, R/O SHIBABARI ROAD, P.O.- TARAPUR, P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST.- CAHCAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788003. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASASM 2:SRI JOY KUMAR SAHA S/O LATE ANIL KUMAR SAHA R/O N. N. DUTTA ROAD WARD NO.-23 P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BULBUL HUSSAIN, MR. S DEY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R BORAH (R-2), MR. R BORUAH (R-2) Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/112/2026 SRI SANTANU NANDAN MAZUMDER LATE SARADENDU SEKHAR MAZUMDAR R/O SHIBABARI ROAD P.O.- TARAPUR P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CAHCAR ASSAM PIN- 788003.ASSAM VERSUS Page No.# 2/5 THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SRI JOY KUMAR SAHA S/O LATE ANIL KUMAR SAHA R/O N.N. DUTTA ROAD WARD NO.-23 P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. BULBUL HUSSAIN Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 23.09.2026. Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Boruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 as well as Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent No.1. This is an interlocutory application under Sections 438 of the BNSS, 2023, for suspension of impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2022, whereby the judgment and order dated 30.04.2022, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar at Silchar in N.I. Case No. 194/2015 was upheld and the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 and thereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a Page No.# 3/5 fine of Rs. 7,00,000/- with default stipulation. It is submitted by Mr. Dey, the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner that the petitioner was appearing regularly before the Trial Court as well as before the Appellate Court below during the entire trial of the case and he never defaulted in his appearance before the whole proceeding. The learned counsel further submitted that there are sufficient materials for succeeding in the connected Revision Petition which has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2022. More so, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court did not consider some vital facts of the case and thus came to a wrong conclusion, convicting the applicant/ petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Mr. Dey, the learned counsel further submitted that in the complaint itself, the respondent No.2 not even stated the basic facts of this case, date of borrowing the money, etc. and further, there are sufficient contradictions in his evidence, which may help the applicant/ petitioner in succeeding in the connected Revision Petition. Mr. Dey also submitted that from the cross-evidence of the respondent No.2, it reveals that there was a loan agreement between the parties and he was basically a money lender and entering into an agreement that the loan was given to the petitioner which he has already repaid. He further submitted that while adducing his evidence, the applicant/ petitioner also exhibited his bank statement which shows that the entire amount was repaid by him before institution of the case. More so, the respondent No.2 admitted in his cross-evidence that he entered the name, date and amount in the cheque in question but those disputed facts were not considered by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court and thus, arrived at a wrong decision convicting the applicant/petitioner. The learned Page No.# 4/5 counsel further submitted that the applicant/petitioner being a teacher by profession, he will produce sufficient surety before the learned Trial Court below if he is allowed to go on bail and the question of absconding also does not arise at this stage. Mr. R. Boruah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 raised objection and submitted that there are sufficient incriminating material in the evidence of the applicant/ petitioner. Once he stated that he gave an amount of Rs. 1 lac to the respondent No.2. On the other hand, he again stated that the loan amount was Rs. 1,50,000/-, which he has already repaid. That apart, he admitted his signature on the cheque in question. From his cross-evidence it is also seen that there are many vital contradictions in his deposition and thus both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court had rightly arrived at a concurrent decision, convicting the applicant/petitioner, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, Mr. Boruah admitted that during the trial, the applicant/ petitioner was regularly appearing before the Court and he never absconded. Considering the entire submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that the present interlocutory application has been made by the applicant/ petitioner only praying for suspension of sentence, allowing the applicant/ petitioner to go on bail, wherein he was sentenced with six months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The contradictions and the materials which have been placed by the learned counsel for both sides may be considered at the time of hearing of the connected revision petition. But for consideration of the present interlocutory application, it is seen that the applicant/petitioner was regularly appearing Page No.# 5/5 before the learned Trial Court below, while facing the trial, who is also a teacher by profession. Considering this aspect of the case and overall conduct of the applicant/petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2022 may be suspended/stayed and the applicant/petitioner may also be allowed to go on bail accordingly. In view of this, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2022 is stayed and the applicant/petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousands) to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar at Silchar. This interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant