Hanif Ali and 3 Ors v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER

18.10.2023

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.

¶2In this interlocutory application, under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., the applicants namely, Hanif Ali; Hasan Ali; Hussain Ali; and Rinku Mallik @ Jaminul Hassan Malik, has prayed for suspension of the sentence handed down upon them, vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge [FTC], Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 72/2022.

¶3It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated

23.08.2023, the learned court below has convicted the applicants under Sections 147/448/325/149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, with default Page No.# 3/4 stipulation under Section 147/149 of the IPC and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation under Sections 447/149 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, with default stipulation under Sections 325/149 of the IPC.

¶4Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were all along bail during the trial and that the punishment so imposed by the learned court below is only 5 years and admittedly there is a land dispute between the parties and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶5On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Addl. P.P. submits that admittedly there is land dispute between the parties and the maximum punishment imposed is only five years.

¶6Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned judgment and order dated

23.08.2023.

¶7It appears that there is substance in the submission of Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant. Admittedly there is land dispute between the parties and the learned court below, in its judgment and order dated

23.08.2023, in Paragraph No. 13, has clearly indicated the same.

¶8Having considered above and also considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to allow this interlocutory application.

¶10Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Page No.# 4/4 Sessions Judge [FTC], Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 72/2022, the applicants shall be released on bail, till disposal of the criminal appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 336/2023.

¶11In terms of above, this IA stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010202532023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Crl.)/854/2023o HANIFoALIoANDo3oORS.o S/OoBURHANoALI,oVILL.-oMEDHIRTARY,oP.O.-oKADONG,oP.S.-oBARPETA,o DIST.-oBARPETA,oASSAM. 2:oHASANoALI oS/OoBURHANoALI oVILL.-oMEDHIRTARY oP.O.-oKADONG oP.S.-oBARPETA oDIST.-oBARPETA oASSAM. 3:oHUSSAINoALI oS/OoBURHANoALI oVILL.-oMEDHIRTARY oP.O.-oKADONG oP.S.-oBARPETA oDIST.-oBARPETA oASSAM. 4:oRINKUoMALLIKo@oJAMINULoHASSANoMALIK oS/OoSHAHJAHANoMALIK oVILL.-oJAHURPAM oP.S.-oBARPETA oDIST.-oBARPETA oASSAMo VERSUSo Page No.# 2/4 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:FUL KHATUN W/O LATE KASHER ALI VILL.- JAHARPAM P.O.- JAHARPAM P.S.- BARPETA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN