The Calcutta High Court has stayed the prison sentences of two individuals convicted in a 2011 criminal case, allowing them to remain at liberty pending a formal review of their plea for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The interim order, issued by the Circuit Bench at Port Blair, prevents the immediate enforcement of the custodial sentence that had been affirmed by the lower appellate court until at least November 30, 2026, or until further judicial intervention.

This legal development follows a prolonged procedural history stemming from a case registered more than a decade ago. The petitioners, seeking parity with a previously sentenced co-accused, moved the High Court to contest the severity of their sentencing, arguing that they occupy a similar legal standing to a fellow convict who was recently granted the benefit of probation. The court’s decision to stay the conviction’s operation provides the petitioners a crucial window to present their arguments on why they, like their counterpart, should be spared from incarceration under the provisions of the 1958 legislation.

Parity in Sentencing: Seeking Equitable Treatment Under Probation Laws

The roots of the current dispute lie in the 2022 ruling of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class-II, which concluded a full-fledged trial concerning G.R. Case No. 283 of 2011. The trial court had found the accused persons guilty of several offences under the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 147, 342, 324, 504, and 506. The magistrate imposed a sentence of six months of imprisonment for the offence under Section 324, alongside a two-month term for rioting under Section 147, with concurrent fines for the remaining charges.

As noted in the court records, “The petitioners’ contention are that after a full dressed trial, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class-II on 7.9.2022 held that the charge proved against all the accused persons including the present petitioners are proved and accordingly, convicted them for the offence punishable under Sections 147/342/324/504/506 of the IPC.”

The petitioners had previously challenged this conviction before the Additional Sessions Judge at Mayabandar in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2023. However, that appeal was dismissed on August 23, 2024, effectively maintaining the original trial court sentence. The turning point for the current application arrived when another co-convict, Laxmi Roy, successfully petitioned the High Court in a separate revision, CRR 3 of 2025. In that instance, the High Court held that the specific convict was entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, citing her consistent attendance during court proceedings, her status as a non-habitual offender, and the significant delay in the conclusion of the litigation which spanned over a decade.

The court, in the case of Laxmi Roy, reasoned that, “…considering the fact that she regularly appeared before the Trial court and that she is not a habitual offender nor the she has committed any offence during the pendency of the case and also considering the fact that the case was initiated in the year 2011 and the petitioner, Laxmi Roy has faced trial till 2022 and that no case is pending against the petitioner, this High Court observed that the convict, Laxmi Roy is entitled to get benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.”

Procedural Timeline and Judicial Intervention

Following the precedent set in the case of Laxmi Roy, the current petitioners argued that they are on the “same footing” and therefore deserve similar leniency. The counsel for the State strongly contested this assertion, arguing that the circumstances of the present petitioners are distinct from those of the previous applicant and that the matter warrants a full examination on its merits.

The High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, acknowledged the complexity of the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the State. Given the request for probation and the comparison to the existing judgment, the bench decided that a more thorough investigation of the specific facts is necessary. Rather than summarily dismissing or accepting the plea, the Court opted to list the matter for a future hearing before the next available Circuit Bench to ensure a comprehensive assessment of whether the equitable relief granted to the co-accused should extend to the petitioners.

Looking Toward the November Hearing

To prevent the potential injustice of the petitioners serving their prison term while their case for probation is still under judicial scrutiny, the Court issued a specific order of stay. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in September 2022, as affirmed by the appellate court in August 2024, have been rendered unenforceable for the time being.

This protective measure ensures that the status quo is maintained as the legal teams prepare their final arguments. The court has directed that the parties rely on the server copy of the order, which is accessible through the High Court’s official website, for any immediate procedural compliance. With the stay of operation effective until November 30, 2026, the case is poised to return to the docket for a final determination on the applicability of reformative sentencing in this long-standing criminal matter. The upcoming proceedings will clarify whether the court identifies sufficient parallels between the petitioners and their co-accused to trigger the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.