p.d. CRAN No.4418 of 2016 in CRA No.629 of 2016
In re:- Bidhan Biswas Ors. … Appellants.
Re: An application for suspension of sentence under Section 389
Cr.P.C. being CRAN No.4418/2016 affirmed on 18.11.2016 in
connection with Sessions Trial No.II(VI)2013 corresponds to Sessions
Case No.99(3) of 2013.
Mr. Asis Sanyal,
Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee … For the appellants.
Mrs. Puspita Saha …. For the State.
In a sessions trial, these six appellants were convicted under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years thereunder
respectively and to pay fines with default clauses.
Now, after the appeal being admitted, with the liberty granted
admitting the appeal, they have now approached this Court for
suspension of sentence and their release on bail.
The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that not a
single witness of the nieghbourhood has been examined to support
the case of the prosecution that there was demand of dowry soon
before the death of the victim housewife. He further submits that only
the relation of the de facto complainant has been examined. Lastly, he
submits that this is a case of term imprisonment and the appellants
were all through on bail during trial and they never misused their
It be noted that before taking any decision in the matter, since
objection was raised vehemently from the side of the State, we
accorded an opportunity to Mrs. Puspita Saha, the learned Counsel to
file her written objection in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of the Atul Tripathi -Vs- State of U.P.,
reported in (2014) 9 SCC 177, and in terms of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 389 Cr.P.C. but she declined to file the same in
writing and intended to resist this application orally on the strength of
the available materials on record.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as
well as the learned Counsel for the State.
We have gone through impugned judgment as also the copy of
the depositions of the witnesses produced before us and the other
materials on record.
Now, having regard to above and considering the findings on
which the impugned order is based and the grounds on which the
same is under challenge and the fact that this is a case of term
imprisonment and the appellants were all through on bail during trial
and they never misused their liberty, we are of the opinion that the
appellants have out a prima facie case showing their possibilities of
successes in the appeal.
Accordingly, we direct that pending hearing of the appeal, the
order of execution of sentence shall remain suspended and the
appellants shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia upon furnishing a bond of
Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each for each of the
appellants, one of whom must be local.
The application for suspension of sentence being CRAN
No.4418 of 2016 is, thus, disposed of.
Office is directed to once again call for the LCR, if the same
have not yet been received by it and after receiving the same, the
department concerned is directed to prepare the requisite number of
paper books within six months thereafter and as soon as the
preparation of paper books is complete and the appeal is made ready
for hearing, the same shall be placed for hearing before the
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)
(Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)