GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SANJIB KUMAR DEURI V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM

GUWAHATI, India, March 1 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Jan. 29:

1. Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicants-revision petitioners and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1 State of Assam.

2. The present application is preferred seeking suspension of the execution of sentence passed against the applicant-revision petitioners and for their release on bail.

3. The applicants as the revision petitioners have preferred the accompanying criminal revision petition, Crl.Rev.P. 19/2026 against a Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge no. 3, Cachar, Silchar ['the Appellate Court', for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 64/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2025, the Appellate Court has affirmed the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate [M], Lakhipur ['the Trial Court', for short] in G.R. Case no. 956/2013. By the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2023, the Trial Court had convicted the applicants-revision petitioners for the offences under Sections 147/448/325/149, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. For the offence under Sections 325/149, IPC the applicants-revision petitioners are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 9,000/- each, with default stipulation. For the other offences, lesser sentences have been passed. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

4. The accompanying criminal revision petition has already been admitted for hearing and the TCRs has been called for.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants-revision petitioners has submitted that there were inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the Trial Court ought to have acquitted the applicants-revision petitioners on benefit of doubt.

6. It has been held in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat, [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 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.

8. Having regard to the fact and circumstances obtaining in the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants-revision petitioners have made out a prima facie case for interim relief. Accordingly, it is ordered that till disposal of the accompanying criminal revision petition, Crl.Rev.P. 19/2026, the execution of the sentence passed against the applicants-revision petitioners shall remain suspended and the applicants-revision petitioners are allowed to be released on fresh bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

9. This order disposes of the application.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.