Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020002812026 2026:GAU-NL:347 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./4/2026 SMTI RADHA BASNET @ RADHIKA TEP M/O SMTI ROSHNI BASNET R/O DAIRY FARM SECTOR NEW RESERVE KOHIMA NAGALAND - 797001 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND P.P. NAGALAND ------------ Advocate for : SENTIYANGER Advocate for : P.P NAGALAND appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocates: For the Applicant : Wapanglemla For the Respondent : S. Mere, P.P., Nagaland Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 09.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : -- operative part of the Judgment? MEINING LUNGLIU GONMEI Digitally signed by MEININGLUNGL IU GONMEI Date: 2026.06.10 17:19:22 +05'30' Page No.# 2/6 Whether the full Judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Ms. Wapanglemla, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, who is seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail with regard to impugned judgment dated 23.03.2026 and order of sentence dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kohima in GR Case No. 66/2022 (arising out of Kohima Women PS Case No. 006/2022). The appellant, for her conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC has been sentenced to RI for 7 (seven) years and fine of ₹5,000/- with default stipulation. The prosecution has filed an affidavit-in-opposition followed by an affidavit-in-reply by the appellant. 2. The learned counsel seeking suspension of sentence and bail submits that there are infirmities in the judgment which indicate the merits of her appeal and in this context it is submitted that the accused was not examined properly under Section 313 CrPC. It is also submitted that there is inadequate medical evidence and that the PM report does not indicate internal injuries. The learned counsel submits and contends that the conviction has been based mainly on suspicion. It is also submitted that during the trial, the applicant/appellant was on bail and she never misused her bail. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that being a fixed sentence, the issue of suspension of sentence and bail may be considered somewhat liberally. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel cites the following decisions: i. Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat Page No.# 3/6 reported in (1994) 4 SCC 421; ii. Kasmira Singh v. The State of Punjab reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291; iii. Dilip Mech v. State of Nagaland in Bail Appln./1/2020; iv. Dilip Mech v. State of Nagaland & Anr. in CRL.A(J)/1/2020; v. Hillang Tuglo v. The State of AP & Anr. in Crl.A./25/2025 and vi. Abdul Hamid v. The State of Assam reported in 2025:GAU- AS:13329. 3. On the other hand, Ms. S. Mere, the learned P.P. opposes the bail at this stage and primarily contends that as the paperbook is in the process of preparation, the application for bail may be taken up for consideration and disposed of altogether. It is submitted that the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is a serious one pertaining to homicide and, therefore, in such offences, the aspect of suspension of sentence should be viewed strictly. It is also submitted that if the Court is to touch upon the merits of the impugned judgment and order, it might prejudice the bail and therefore, the appeal itself may be heard and disposed of. In support of her contentions, the learned P.P. cites the following decision: i. Jamnalal v. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2025 INSC 935. 4. I have perused the relevant materials and given due consideration to the matter; considered the rival submissions and the decisions cited at the Page No.# 4/6 Bar. 5. Before proceeding further, the principles regarding suspension of sentence and bail laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamnalal (supra), relied upon by the prosecution may be noticed. In para 10 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court indicated that, in adjudication pertaining to suspension of sentence, the court has to examine whether prima facie there was anything palpable on record to indicate that the accused had a fair chance of overturning the conviction. The Hon’ble Apex Court also referred to the case of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Another reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123 where it was held in para 23, 24 and 33 as follows: “23. The principle underlying the theory of criminal jurisprudence in our country is that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. Once the accused is held guilty, the presumption of innocence gets erased. In the same manner, if the accused is acquitted, then the presumption of innocence gets further fortified. 24. From perusal of Section 389 CrPC, it is evident that save and except the matter falling under the category of sub-section (3) neither any specific principle of law is laid down nor any criteria has been fixed for consideration of the prayer of the convict and further, having a judgment of conviction erasing the presumption leaning in favour of the accused regarding innocence till contrary recorded by the court of competent jurisdiction, and in the aforesaid background, there happens to be a fine distinction between the prayer for bail at the pre- conviction as well as the post-conviction stage viz. Sections 437, 438, 439 and 389(1) CrPC. 33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually takes very long Page No.# 5/6 for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in (2023) 6 SCC 123 other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach.” 6. During the trial, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the informant and the Autopsy Doctor. The Autopsy Doctor has indicated in his evidence as PW-12 that multiple injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased baby and he opined that the death was due to stroke and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the head and other parts of the body. PW-2, Dr. Neizoru Yiese, has testified about a newborn baby being brought to the emergency in the early hours of 22.05.2022 with multiple injuries and that the baby was reportedly found in a drain below the hospital. Subsequently, the baby was admitted in the NICU and despite best efforts did not survive. PW-2 stated about examining the appellant as a Gynecologist on 22.05.2022 and that though, initially, the appellant denied her pregnancy, later a placenta was found in the washroom of the general ward and PW-2 further stated in his testimony that the baby which was found below the hospital belonged to her. PW-4, Jevi Ahmed stated about noticing a baby in the drain behind the hospital in the early hours of 22.05.2022. PW-8, Neina Basnet, sister of the appellant stated about the appellant going to the hospital and then going to the toilet when she came back from the toilet, she was having bleeding whereupon she was taken to the emergency room. 7. It may be mentioned herein that in the main criminal appeal, the Page No.# 6/6 preparation of the paperbook is underway and the appeal has been posted for final hearing after 3 (three) weeks, by which time it is expected that the paperbook would be ready. 8. In the given facts and circumstances, I find force in the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, Ms. S. Mere that the matter should be heard and finally disposed of instead of granting bail to the petitioner at this stage. In such view of the matter and also in the overall circumstances, the prayer for suspension of sentence and bail stands rejected at this stage, as the main appeal is poised for hearing within a month. 9. However, it is made clear that nothing stated in this order shall be taken as expressing any view on merits of the main appeal. Further, considering the fact that the Court is not inclined to allow the bail at this stage for the reasons indicated above - I do not deem it necessary to burden the order with the discussion of the other case laws submitted by the learned counsels in the instant adjudication pertaining to suspension of sentence and bail. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant