Dismissed¶32

Aijul Ali @ Aijul Rahman @ Kalia v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC2 Dec 2025I.A.(Crl.)/850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence and bail under section 430 BNSS refused in a murder conviction under section 302 IPC (Sessions Case No. 230 (NL)/2023, learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur, judgement dated 23/06/2025); Gauhati High Court rejected I.A.(Crl.)/850/2025 filed in pending appeal Crl.A./300/2025, relying on eyewitness PW-22, TIP identification of the appellant by PWs-8 & 23 as deposed by PW-37, and identification through V.C.; interim observations expressly non-final during disposal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The evidence of PW-22 establishes that the thin person (the appellant) had stabbed the deceased when the deceased had caught hold of the fat person. ¶30

Aijul Ali @ Aijul Rahman @ Kalia Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence inflicted upon the applicant pursuant to his conviction under section 302 IPC should be suspended and bail granted under section 430 BNSS.

¶25

Court's answer

The evidence of PW-22 establishes that the thin person (the appellant) had stabbed the deceased when the deceased had caught hold of the fat person.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The evidence of PW-37 shows that PWs-8 and 23 identified the appellant during the TIP; PWs-8 and 23 further stated that they had seen the appellant and the other fat person riding away on a bike carrying the stolen goat, and PW-22 identified the appellant through V.C. on the date of giving his evidence.

¶31

Key takeaways

Considering the evidence of PW-22 and PW-37, the Court was not inclined to suspend the sentence or grant bail to the applicant, and rejected the application.ratio¶32
Any observation and finding made in this order shall not be construed as the final finding or observation of the Court during disposal of the appeal.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (order authored by Michael Zothankhuma, J, sitting with N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J), dated 03/12/2025 in I.A.(Crl.)/850/2025 arising out of Crl.A./300/2025 - Aijul Ali @ Aijul Rahman @ Kalia v. The State of Assam & Anr.: The applicant/appellant, convicted under section 302 IPC vide judgement dated 23/06/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 230 (NL)/2023, applied under section 430 BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Application rejected. The Court relied on the evidence of PW-22 that the thin person (appellant) had stabbed the deceased when the deceased had caught hold of the fat person, and on PW-37's evidence that PWs-8 & 23 identified the appellant during the TIP and had seen the appellant and the other fat person riding away on a bike carrying the stolen goat, PW-22 also identifying the appellant through V.C.; in view of this evidence the Court was not inclined to suspend the sentence. Any observation and finding in the order is expressly not to be construed as the final finding or observation during disposal of the appeal.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010152832025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/850/2025

¶6

AIJUL ALI @ AIJUL RAHMAN @ KALIA SON OF YOUSUF ALI VILLAGE RANGAJAN BORBEEL P/S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

¶9

2:BAKUL SAIKIA SON OF LATE KANAKESWAR SAIKIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOBARIHALI GAON P/S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶10

-----------Advocate for : ARMANUL HAQUE BHUYAN Advocate for : PP

¶11

ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

¶12

In Crl.A./300/2025

¶13

AIJUL ALI @ AIJUL RAHMAN @ KALIA SON OF YOUSUF ALI, VILLAGE RANGAJAN, BORBEEL, P/S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

¶17

2:BAKUL SAIKIA SON OF LATE KANAKESWAR SAIKIA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOBARIHALI GAON P/S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : ARMANUL HAQUE BHUYAN, MS. L WAJEEDA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A DUTTA (R-2)

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 03/12/2025

¶24

(Michael Zothankhuma, J)

¶25

1. Heard Mr. A.H. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, who submits that this application under section 430 BNSS, for suspending the sentence inflicted upon the applicant, pursuant to his conviction under section 302 IPC vide impugned judgement dated 23/06/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur, in Sessions case No. 230 (NL)/2023 should be allowed.

¶26

2. The applicant’s counsel submits that there is a contradiction in the contents of the FIR vis-à-vis the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

¶27

3. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, on the other hand, submits that when there is an eye witness to the crime in question, whose evidence has not been shaken, it would not be proper for this Court to suspend the sentence.

¶28

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

5. The evidence of PW-22 is to the effect that the thin person (appellant) had stabbed the deceased when the deceased had caught hold of the fat person.

¶31

6. The evidence of PW-37 shows that the PWs-8 & 23 had identified the appellant during the TIP. PWs-8 & 23 had also stated in their evidence that they had seen the appellant and other fat person riding away on a bike carrying the stolen goat. PW-22 had also identified the appellant through V.C. on the date of giving his evidence.

¶32

7. Considering the above, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the applicant. The application is accordingly rejected. However, any observation and finding made by us in this order, shall not be construed to be the final finding or observation made by us during disposal of the appeal.

¶33

JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Aijul Ali @ Aijul Rahman @ Kalia v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aijul Ali @ Aijul Rahman @ Kalia v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renu Bora Singh and 14 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

MD Humayun Kabir Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dipankar Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sri Biki Thapa Vs the State of Assam

Assam Andolon Sangrami Mancha Vs the Union of India and 13 Ors.

Amarendra Nath Vs the State of Assam