Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010191762021 2026:GAU-AS:4548-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/495/2021 CHANDRA RONGPHAR S/O-LT. RAMSING RONGPHAR, R/O VILL. PAKLANGSO, P.O. BOKAJAN, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM. 3: JAYSING ENGTI S/O-LT. RAMNATH ENGTI R/O VILL. PAKLANGSO P.O. BOKAJAN DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. OF THIS HONA,BLE COURT. 2:LONGKI TAMUNG S/O-LT. SARTHE TIMUNG R/O VILL. PAKLANGCHO P.S. BOKAJAN DIST. KARBI ANGLON Advocate for the Petitioner : , MR. D M NATH (R-2,3),MR G RAHUL (R-2,3) Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 30.03.2026 (Kaushik Goswami, J) Heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 2. The present interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants, namely Sri Chandra Rongphar and Sri Jaysing Engti, under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking suspension of the sentence imposed upon them by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No. 9/1993, along with a prayer for their release on bail. 3. This application was earlier taken up by this Court on 09.02.2022. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court was pleased to hold that no new ground had been made out for entertaining the second bail application and accordingly directed expeditious hearing and disposal of the connected appeal. 4. The order dated 09.02.2022 clearly records that a similar bail application preferred by the present applicants had earlier been rejected by this Court by order dated 11.01.2019. Notwithstanding the said rejection, the applicants again approached this Court seeking bail, primarily on the ground that the conviction was based on judicial Page No.# 3/4 confession and that they had been in custody for a considerable period. 5. This Court, however, observed that it is well settled that a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained solely on the basis of a judicial confession, provided the same is found to be voluntary and truthful. It was further held that the mere fact that the conviction is based on confession cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for grant of bail. At the same time, considering the submission regarding prolonged incarceration, this Court found it appropriate to direct expeditious hearing of the appeal. The said order dated 09.02.2022 reads as under: - "09/02/2022 Heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the applicants i.e. the appellant nos. 3 and 4 in the connected appeal. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State. Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel is present on behalf of the appellant nos. 1 and 2. The two applicants herein were amongst the four persons convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of the deceased Pahi Timu. By filing this application, the applicants have prayed for suspension of their jail sentence and for release on bail. Similar bail application filed by the present applicants was earlier rejected by this Court by order dated 11/01/2019 passed in IA(Crl) 188/2018, arising out of the connected appeal. Notwithstanding the order dated 11/01/2019, the applicants have once again approached this Court by filing this application, seeking bail inter-alia contending that save and except the judicial confession available on record, there are no other evidence to sustain their conviction. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that his clients are in jail since last four years and, therefore, the present is a fit case to consider the bail prayer made by the applicants. Law is settled that conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be based solely on judicial confession if the same is found to be truthful and voluntary in nature. Therefore, merely because the Page No.# 4/4 conviction is based on confession, the same cannot be a ground to set aside the same. However, in a given case whether the confession is recorded in accordance with law and whether the same inspires the confidence of the Court as being truthful and voluntary in nature, would have to be assessed on the basis of materials brought on record. While holding that there is no new ground for this Court to entertain the second bail application filed by the applicants, we find force in the submission of Mr. Rahul that the appeal calls for expeditious hearing and disposal. The Paper Book is ready in this case. In view of the above, Registry to furnish the Paper Book to the learned counsel for all the parties. Let this appeal be listed for final hearing on date to be fixed by the Registry in the third week of March, 2022.” 6. In view of the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2022, whereby the prayer for bail was rejected on merits, it is evident that no issue survives for adjudication in the present interlocutory application. 7. It is further noted that the paper book has already been prepared and furnished to the learned counsel for the parties. Upon their request, the appeal has now been fixed for final hearing on 12.05.2026. As such, the appeal is likely to be disposed of within a reasonable period of time. 8. In the above circumstances, and in view of the order dated 09.02.2022, the present interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant