JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Poddar and Mr. D. Ullah, learned counsels for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The instant interlocutory application is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the three applicant-appellant and for his release on bail.

3. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 314/2025 against a Judgment dated 10.07.2025 and order on sentence dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case no. 97/2017. By the Judgment dated 10.07.2025, the applicant-appellant has been found guilty of the offence under Section 307 r/w Section 34 , IPC; Section 326 r/w Section 34 , IPC; and Section 34 1 r/w Section 34 , IPC. By the Order on sentence dated 11.07.2025, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month with fine and default stipulation under Sections 34 1/34, IPC; rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine and default stipulation under Sections 326 /34, IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine and default stipulation under Sections 307 /34 IPC.

4. The learned counsels appearing for the applicant side has taken the Court through some portions of the impugned judgment of conviction, pointing out some infirmities therein. It is also pointed out from parts of the depositions about a supposed error made by the learned trial court regarding the presence of the present convict applicant at the place of occurrence. It is also contended and submitted that pursuant to invocation of 319 of the CrPC, bringing on record more accused persons to face trial – the learned court below should have proceeded to conduct de novo trial with regard to those persons which was not done in the instant case. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 738

5. Drawing attention to para 10 of the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly stipulated that, in case of new persons being arraiyed as accused, invoking the said statutory provision of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , de novo trial has to be conducted with regard to them and in this context, submitted that failing to do so would vitiate the trial. In support of the contentions for suspension of sentence and bail in a case like this, the learned petitioner counsel has referred to the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 4 SCC 421 . The attention of the court is drawn to para 2 thereof, wherein, it has been stated inter alia that, “when a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. On course if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach. But if for any reason the sentence of limited duration cannot be suspended every endeavour should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits more so when motion for expeditious hearing the appeal is made in such cases. Otherwise the very valuable right of appeal would be an exercise in futility by efflux o