Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010259392025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1263/2025 ANOWAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL MATIN R/O DEBPUKHURI,P.S ORANG,DIST UDALGURI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BEREPRESENTED BY THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, S NAZNIN,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.Rev.P./495/2025 ANOWAR HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL MATIN R/O DEBPUKHURI P.S ORANG DIST UDALGURI ASSAM VERSUS Page No.# 2/4 THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 06.01.2026 Heard Mr. I.U. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent State of Assam. 2. The present application is preferred seeking suspension of the execution of sentence passed against the applicant-revision petitioner and for his release on bail. 3. The applicant as the revision petitioner has preferred the accompanying criminal revision petition, Crl.Rev.P./495/2025 against a Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udalguri [‘the Appellate Court’, for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 01/2025. By the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2025, the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant-revision petitioner and has affirmed a Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udalguri [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in PR Case no. 1198/2017 [GR Case no. 715/2016]. By the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2024, the Trial Court had convicted the applicant-revision petitioner for the offence under Section 468, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 [three] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months. The Appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Page No.# 3/4 4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the trial, the petitioner did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him and regularly appeared before the Trial Court. During the course of investigation, the applicant-revision petitioner was in custody for a period of 60 days. It is further submitted that the evidence are insufficient to bring home the charge under Section 468, IPC as there were number of gaps in the prosecution case and the applicant-revision petitioner in all possibility is likely to be acquitted, at least on the benefit of doubt. 5. In exercise of the Power of Revision under Section 442, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023, this court can, in its discretion, also exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal by Section 430, BNSS. 6. It has been held in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat reported in [1999] 4 SCC 421, to the effect that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. It has been further observed that it would be a different matter if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment, the consideration for suspension of sentence is to be approached in a different manner. 7. In Omprakash Sahni vs. Jaiprakash Chaudhary and another, [2023] 6 SCC 123, the observations made in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai [supra] have been referred to. 8. Considering the fact that the applicant-revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 3 [three] years; he had spent 60 days in custody during the course of investigation; and the above projections made on behalf of the applicant-revision petitioner, it is ordered that the execution of the sentence passed against the applicant- revision petitioner shall remain suspended till the disposal of the accompanying criminal revision petition, and the applicant-revision petitioner is allowed to be released on fresh bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udalguri. Page No.# 4/4 9. This Order disposes of the application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant