Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020000682020 2026:GAU-NL:207 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./1/2020 DILIP MECH S/O OF SHRI LILO MECH R/O MAKHARONG VILLAGE, WOKHA DISTRICT- 797111, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND NAGALAND, KOHIMA Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 08.04.2026 (S.P. Khaund, J) 1. Heard legal Aid Counsel Mr. Sentiyanger and learned Additional A.G. Ms. V. Suokhrie. Page No.# 2/4 2. The legal Aid Counsel representing Dilip Mech has prayed for bail as the accused was convicted vide orders dated 13.09.2017 and 17.10.2017 in connection with GR Case No. 65/2016 under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. It is further contended that the accused has already served his sentence for more than 9 years 10 months. His right to liberty has been curtailed as the appeal has not been disposed of expeditiously. It is further submitted that a false case has been brought up against the petitioner/accused and there is every possibility that the accused will be acquitted and thus his rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India will be violated. It is further submitted that no reasons have been accorded while convicting the accused under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC. 4. Per contra, learned Additional A.G. has fairly submitted that the accused/appellant/petitioner has already served his major part of the sentence. It is also submitted that as the appeal is pending for a considerable period of time, this bail petition may be disposed of. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh Vs. The State of Punjab reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291, wherein it has been held that:- “The appellant contends in this application that pending the hearing of the appeal he should be released on bail. Now, the practice in this Court as also in many of the High Courts has been not to release on bail a Page No.# 3/4 person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The question is whether this practice should be departed from and if so, in what circumstances. It is obvious that no practice howsoever sanctified by usage and hallowed by time can be allowed to prevail if it operates to cause injustice. Every practice of the Court must find its ultimate justification in the interest of justice. The practice not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment was evolved in the High Courts and in this Court on the basis that once a person has been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, he should not be let loose, so long as his conviction and sentence are not set aside, but the underlying postulate of this practice was that the appeal of such person would be disposed of within a measureable distance of time. so that if he is ultimately found to be innocent, he would not have to remain in jail for an unduly long period. The rationale of this practice can have no application where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years. It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six vears for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him. Can the Court ever compensate him for his incarceration which is found to be unjustified? Would it be just at all for the Court to tell a person: "We have admitted your appeal because we think you have a prima facie case, but unfortunately we have no time to hear your appeal for quite a few years and, therefore, until we hear your appeal, you must remain in jail, even though you may be innocent?" What confidence would such administration of justice inspire in the mind of the public? It may quite conceivably happen, and it has in fact happened in a few cases in this Court, that a person may serve out his full term of imprisonment before his appeal is taken up for hearing. Would a judge not be overwhelmed with a feeling of contrition while acquitting such a person after hearing the appeal? Would it not be an affront to his sense of justice? Of what avail would the acquittal be to such a person who has already served out his term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it? It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the practice which this Court has been following in the past must be reconsidered and so long as this Court is not in a position to hear the appeal of an accused within a reasonable period of time, the Court should ordinarily, unless there are cogent grounds for acting otherwise, release the accused on bail in cases where special leave has been granted to the accused to appeal against his conviction and sentence.” Page No.# 4/4 6. Reverting back to this case, we have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. We have considered the length of sentence already served by the accused/appellant Dilip Mech in connection with GR Case No. 65/2016. 7. It appears that further detention may not be required as the appellant has already served almost his entire sentence. 8. The merits of this case are not brought to the fore as the appeal is pending. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner/accused/appellant on bail. Thereby, the accused/appellant (Crl.A.(J)/1/2020) is enlarged on bail of Rs. 5,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 9. In terms of the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant