Gauhati High Court
Md Mofizur Rahman Alias Sujan vs The State Of Assam on 28 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010056152025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/873/2025
MD MOFIZUR RAHMAN ALIAS SUJAN
S/O - LATE NOORUDDIN
R/O - VILL - BAMUNGAON
P.O. - UDALIBAZAR
P.S. - LANKA
DIST - HOJAI, ASSAM
PIN - 782446
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY PP ASSAM
2:DR. IMRAN HUSSAIN
S/O - LATE TUSUF ALI
R/O - VIII. RANGALO SUTAR GAON
P.S. - JUMURMUR
DIST - NAGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : CHINMOY CHAKRAVARTY, MR. S SARMA,MR. R
HAZARIKA,MR. C CHAKRAVARTY,MR D DAS,MR B P SARMAH,B SAHA,S J KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. T BEGUM (R-2),MR. A ROSHID (R-2)
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
28.11.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.J. Boruah, learned Addl Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This I.A. has been preferred seeking suspension of the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, in Sessions Case No. Sessions (1) 18(H) of 2021 arising out of PRC Case No. 921/2021 convicting and sentencing the applicant, namely, MD.Mofizur Rahman @Sujan to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and the fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) under section 326 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 1(one) year, convicting and sentencing the Applicant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple Imprisonment for 6 (Six) months for the offence committed under Section 333 of Indian Penal Code, read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the applicant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 (Four) years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence committed U/S 3(2) PDPP Act, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the Applicant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (Three) years Page No.# 3/7 and fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand) only, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 10 (ten) days for the offence committed under section 143 Indian Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the applicant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and fine of Rs.2000/-(two thousand) only, in default undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days for the offence committed under section 147 Indian Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the Applicant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) year and fine of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) only, In default undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 (Fifteen) days for the offence committed under Section 148 IPC, convicting and sentencing the applicant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month and a fine of Rs. 500/-(Rupees Five Hundred) only, in default undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (Two) days for the offence committed under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the applicant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (Two) years and fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only, in default undergo simple Imprisonment for 10 (ten) days for the offence committed under Section 4 of the Assam Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institution (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property Act) 2011, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, convicting and sentencing the applicant to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) only as compensation under Section 6 of Assam Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institution (Prevention of violence and damage to Property Act) 2011, convicting and sentencing the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (Three) years and fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only, in default undergo simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence committed under Section 6(2) of Epidemic Disease Act, 2020 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code, convicting Page No.# 4/7 and sentencing the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and fine of Rs.1,00000/-(Rupees One Lakh) only, in default undergo simple Imprisonment for 1 (year) for the offence committed under Section 6(3) of Epidemic Disease Act, 2020 read with Section 149 IPC and convicting and sentencing the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (Six) months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand) only, in default undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) days for the offence committed under Section 51(a) of Disaster Management Act, read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are glaring errors of law as well as on facts committed by the learned Trial Court while convicting and sentencing the accused/applicant as aforesaid.
4. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.J. Boruah has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
5. However, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has sought time to file objection. It is further submitted that co-accused persons have been granted the benefit of suspension of sentence in the present case after considering the objection of the prosecution.
6. I have perused the impugned Judgment and find that the present applicant stands exactly on the same footing as the other co-accused persons, who have been granted benefit of suspension of sentence by virtue of orders passed by this Court. Copies of which have been furnished by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Page No.# 5/7
7. Therefore, the contents of any objection that may be filed by the prosecution in the present case cannot be materially different from the objection already submitted in the application filed by the co-accused persons. Therefore, although the proviso to Section 389 of CrPC provides that in offences, inter alia, involving imprisonment for not less than 10 years, before releasing the accused applicant on bail, the Addl. Public Prosecutor is to be given an opportunity for showing cause in writing against such release, in view of the objections already filed in respect of the other co-accused by the prosecution, the matter need not be delayed by insisting upon a rigid interpretation of the proviso to Section 389 of the CrPC, 1973.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 211, wherein it has been held that the normal rule is that when the appeal of a person convicted and sentenced is pending, the sentence passed on him should be suspended unless any exceptional reason existing therein requires the denial of the same.
9. Reference was made to Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a person is sentenced to a short-term imprisonment, the normal rule is that pending disposal of the appeal, the sentence should be suspended and rejection is only by way of exception.
10. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India &Ors, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731, it was held as follows:
Page No.# 6/7 "15. We, therefore, direct as under:
(i) Where the undertrial is accused of an offence(s) under the Act prescribing a punishment of imprisonment of five years or less and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half the punishment provided for the offence with which he is charged and where he is charged with more than one offence, the offence providing the highest punishment.
If the offence with which he is charged prescribes the maximum fine, the bail amount shall be 50% of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount.
ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs 50,000 with two sureties for like amount."
11. In Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, 2025 INSC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the above Judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. It was further held that in the case of fixed-term sentences, if the courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal.
12. In the instant case, I have perused the material on record. The applicant has been in jail since his conviction vide Judgment Order dated 24.01.2025 and Sentence Order dated 29.01.2025 and the sentence is for a fixed period of 5 years.
Page No.# 7/7
13. Keeping in view the same and considered in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Kumar (Supra), I do not find any exceptional reason requiring denial of suspension of sentence, even though the applicants have not spent an unduly long period behind bars. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the execution of the remaining part of the sentence imposed by the impugned Judgment may be suspended. It is accordingly so ordered.
14. Further, during the pendency of the connected criminal appeal, the applicant is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, with a condition that, in the event of dismissal of the connected Criminal Appeal No. 312/2025, the applicant shall surrender before the Trial Court to serve out the remaining part of his sentence imposed by the impugned judgment or as may be directed by the Appellate Court.
15. The Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant