Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010060392026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/319/2026 RAKESH KUMAR PAUL S/O LATE RANJIT KUMAR PAUL. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SANGRILLA, HOUSE NO. 47, SHAKTIGARH PATH ,BYE LANE NO. 3, PO AND PS BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI 781005 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY PP ASSAM 2:BEDANTA BIKASH DAS S/O LATE NANDESWAR DAS RESIDENT OF MAJGAON TEZPUR PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM 78431 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A BHATTACHARYA, MR. D DAS SR. ADV,MR S PAUL,MS ANKITA SAHARIA,MS. K MALAKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, P. KATAKI, PP,MR. P. KATAKI, SPECIAL PP ASSAM Linked Case : Crl.A./420/2024 RAKESH KUMAR PAUL S/O LATE RANJIT KUMAR PAUL. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SANGRILLA HOUSE NO. 47 SHAKTIGARH PATH BYE LANE NO. 3 PO AND PS BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 781005 ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:BEDANTA BIKASH DAS S/O LATE NANDESWAR DAS RESIDENT OF MAJGAON TEZPUR PS TEZPUR DIST SONITPUR ASSAM 784313 ------------ Advocate for : MR. A BHATTACHARYA Advocate for : MR. P.P. DUTTA SPECIAL PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 18/06/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. D Das, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S Das, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. P Kataki, Learned Special PP, assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, Addl. Special PP, appearing for the State of Assam. 2. The applicant has prayed for bail on the ground that the applicant has served more than half the sentence of imprisonment that can be inflicted upon the applicant in terms of section 31(2)(a) Cr.P.C and in terms of the judgment dated 22/07/2024 and the sentence dated 29/07/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, in Special Case No. 05/2021, arising out of Bhangaghar PS case no. 159/2017. 3. By the above impugned judgment, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default, R.I. for another 2 months under section 7 of the PC Act read with section 120 B IPC. He has also been Page No.# 3/7 sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, R.I. for 2 months under section 13 (2) of the PC Act read with section 120 B capital B of the IPC. He has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, R.I. for 2 months under section 420 IPC read with section 120 B of the IPC. He has also been sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, R.I. for 2 months under section 468 IPC read with section 120 B of the IPC. All the above 4 sentences are to run consecutively in terms of the impugned judgement. 4. The applicant’s counsel submits that in terms of section 31(2) (a) Cr.P.C., no person can be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of more than 14 years when the Trial Court has directed that the sentence are to run consecutively. 5. Though the Trial Court has convicted the applicant for 10 years rigorous imprisonment under section 13(2) of the PC Act and the aggregate punishment not exceeding twice the amount of punishment for that offence, allows the punishment up to 20 years, Section 31 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. cannot override the provisions of Section 31 (2) (a) Cr.P.C. Thus, in view of Section 31 (2)(a) Cr.P.C. and the fact that the applicant has completed 7 years 6 months in prison, the applicant should be released on bail in terms of section 436 A Cr.P.C., which the Supreme Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court has also applied in cases relating to imprisonment/sentence after conviction. 6. In this respect, the Senior Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein it has been held that though delay in taking up the main appeal would certainly be a factor and the benefit available under section 436A Cr.P.C. would also be considered, the Courts will have to see the relevant factors including the conviction rendered by the learned Trial Court. When it is so apparent that the appeals are not likely to be taken up and Page No.# 4/7 disposed of, then the delay would certainly be a factor in favour of the appellant. The Supreme Court thus held that the delay in taking up the main appeal or revision, coupled with the benefit conferred under section 436A Cr.P.C. among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail when an application for suspension of the sentence has been made during the pendency of the appeal. 7. In the case of Dinesh Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand through CBI reported in (2009) 6 SCC 628, the appellant had filed an appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence before the Patna High Court and the appellant had also made an application for suspension of the sentence and grant of bail. The High Court had rejected the prayer for suspension of the sentence with an observation that the appellant may renew its prayer for bail after serving half the sentence. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then granted bail on the ground that the appellant had already undergone two years of imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court and as the appeal may not be heard in the near future, bail should be granted. 8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had also granted bail to the convict who was undergoing his sentence, while the appeal filed by him had been pending before the High Court. The Coordinate Bench by order dated 29/09/2022 passed in IA(Crl) 600/2022, held as follows:- “Be that as it may, the final hearing of the connected appeal may take some more time due to various intervening reasons. Taking note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of UP reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259 and Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) we are of the view that a new ground has become available to the applicant for preferring this application for the first time after he has completed half of the maximum jail sentence.” Page No.# 5/7 9. Accordingly, bail had been granted to the applicant in IA(Crl) 600/2022. 10. The applicant’s counsel submits that as the applicant has undergone more than 7 years 6 months’ imprisonment, the applicant should be granted bail, keeping in view the decisions of the above judgements passed by the Supreme Court and this Court. 11. On the other hand, Mr. P. Kataki, the learned Special PP, Assam, submits that though bail can be granted to a convict who has undergone half the sentence on conviction, in terms of the judgments cited by the applicant’s counsel, the same is also subject to a further condition that there would be delay in disposing the appeal. He submits that there are 19 connected appeals pending before this Court, in which the applicant has been convicted and as such, the cases are of a very serious nature. 12. As all the appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment and order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, in Special Case no. 05/2021, the Paper Book that has already been made in Criminal Appeal No. 420/2024, would suffice for disposing of all the appeals. He thus submits that a hearing date may be fixed at the earliest so that there is disposal of the main cases. 13. On a query made to the learned counsel for the applicant that grant of bail under Section 436A Cr.P.C on a convict having undergone half of the sentence was subject to the additional condition of there being delay in disposing the appeal, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that if the Paper Books are prepared for all the appeals, the applicant was ready for hearing on the matter at any time. 14. In the case of K C Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584, the Supreme Court has held that Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the Page No.# 6/7 institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises, the corrupt public servants could even paralyze the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant is found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. 15. The appeals filed pursuant to the impugned judgment and order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, in Special Case no. 05/2021, are as follows :- 1. Crl. Appeal No. 263/2024 2. Crl. Appeal No. 268/2024 3. Crl. Appeal No. 269/2024 4. Crl. Appeal No. 270/2024 5. Crl. Appeal No. 271/2024 6. Crl. Appeal No. 272/2024 7. Crl. Appeal No. 273/2024 8. Crl. Appeal No. 274/2024 9. Crl. Appeal No. 275/2024 10. Crl. Appeal No. 278/2024 11. Crl. Appeal No. 279/2024 Page No.# 7/7 12. Crl. Appeal No. 280/2024 13. Crl. Appeal No. 281/2024 14. Crl. Appeal No. 282/2024 15. Crl. Appeal No. 283/2024 16. Crl. Appeal No. 284/2024 17. Crl. Appeal No. 286/2024 18. Crl. Appeal No. 290/2024 19. Crl. Appeal No. 324/2024 16. Registry is directed to furnish the PDF version of the Paper Book to all the counsels for the parties in the above noted appeals, to enable them to prepare for final hearing and disposal of the appeals. 17. As the learned counsels for the parties submit that they are ready to have a final disposal of the appeals, we intend to dispose of all the appeals arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 22/07/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, in Special Case no. 05/2021, we are not inclined to allow the prayer for bail and suspension of the sentence at this state. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeals be listed for final hearing on 18.08.2026. 18. The application is accordingly rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant