Janardan Konwar v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER Date : 19.02.2024

Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶2This is an application under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. praying for granting bail by suspending sentence pending appeal to the applicant in connection with the judgment and order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 30(NL)/2023, whereby convicting the accused/applicant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 6(six) months for the offence under Section 325 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 1(one) month for the offence under Section 120(B) IPC and further sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence Page No.# 3/5 undergo Section 279 IPC and also sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 6(six) months for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

¶3The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Sri Tikendrajit Baruah was granted bail by this Court who was convicted under Section 120B/325 IPC vide judgment and order dated

13.09.2023.

¶4It is also submitted that in this case, the maximum period of imprisonment is 7(seven) years. By referring the judgment of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 211, learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short-term imprisonment the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception and be put forward for such rejection. In such case also every endeavour should be made to have the appeal posted for early hearing and disposal. If the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become, for all practical purposes, infructuous so far as the appellant is concerned. It does not mean that the appellate court should suspend the sentence, if its consequence would be a danger to the society or any other similar difficulties." Considering this aspect, the applicant be released on bail during pendency of the appeal.

¶5In response, Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 filed an objection against the prayer of the application by stating Page No.# 4/5 that the respondent No. 2 has preferred an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before this Court for lesser offence vide Crl. Appeal No. 422/2023 which is pending before this Court. From the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.10, it reveals that it is not a case of hit and run. Hence, the applicant ought to have been convicted under Section 302 IPC. As such, the prayer of the applicant may not be considered by suspending the sentence during pendency of the appeal.

¶6On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public prosecutor submits that the State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of sentence and also has not filed any objection regarding the prayer of the applicant.

¶7I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the judgment of the learned trial court.

¶8Considering the nature of offence as well as the fact as reflected in the case record and without going into the merits of the case at this stage, this Court is inclined to grant the prayer of the applicant.

¶9Accordingly, the accused-applicant, named above, shall be released on bail suspending the sentence during pendency of the appeal in connection with Sessions Case No. 30(NL)/2023, under Section 325/120(B)/279/304 Part II IPC, subject to the following conditions :

(i) The applicant shall furnish a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two suitable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur; Page No.# 5/5

(ii) The applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam without prior written permission from him/her till disposal of the appeal.

¶10Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending criminal appeal.

¶11In view of the above, interlocutory application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010256782023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./431/2023 JANARDAN KONWAR S/O BOLIN KONWAR R/O VILL. PAHUMARA NASAGARI P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:BEDABRAT BORA @ MINTU S/O MUHIKANTA BORA R/O VILL. RANGPURIA P.S NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BORA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1138/2023 JANARDAN KONWAR S/O BOLIN KONWAR R/O VILL. PAHUMARA NASAGARI P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM 2:BEDABRAT BORA @ MINTU S/O MUHIKANTA BORA R/O VILL. RANGPURIA P.S NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. D BORA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI