17.12.2025 Item no. 41.

Court No.8.

AB (Allowed)

CRA 205 of 2020 With CRAN 5 of 2025 In the matter of : Bidhan Kumar ……Petitioner/

Appellant.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv, Mr. Avik Ghatak, Mr. Fahad Iman, Mr. S. K. Dasgupta ……for the Appellant/

Petitioner.

Mrs. Amita Gour, ld. APP Mr. P. P. Das ……for the State.

Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.

In re : CRAN 5 of 2025

1. The petitioner’s prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected twice earlier, first time on August 10, 2021 and then again on November 20, 2024. While rejecting his prayer for bail on November 20, 2024, a Coordinate Bench had directed the appeal to be listed for hearing.

2. The petitioner says that after his conviction under Section 302 IPC, he has been in custody for about five years ten months. His appeal is pending for more than five years. He relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kashmira Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (1977)4 SCC 291 and Takht Singh & Others Vs State of MP reported in (2001) 10 SCC 463 in support of his prayer.

3. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the prayer. She says that the petitioner injured four persons and killed another person. There are eyewitnesses to the incident. There is absolutely no lacuna in the judgment and order under appeal. No leniency should be shown to the petitioner.

4. Presently we are not on merits. We see that the petitioner is in custody for five years ten months post conviction. The appeal is pending for more than five years. More than a year ago while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for suspension of sentence, a Coordinate Bench had directed listing of the appeal obviously expecting the appeal to be heard soon thereafter. The same has not been possible.

5. Further, we are told that the petitioner was all along on bail during trial. It is not the case of the State that the petitioner breached any condition of bail or misused the privilege in any manner.

6. Hence, without touching the merits of the case and solely on the principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as keeping in mind the ratios in the cases of Kashmira Singh (supra) and Takht Singh (supra), we feel impelled to allow this application and suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant/appellant.

7. Accordingly, we direct that the applicant/appellant, namely Bidhan Kumar shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia, and on further conditions that he shall meet the Inspector in charge/Officer in charge, Kotshila Police Station once in a fortnight till disposal of the appeal and shall not leave the District of Purulia without the leave of the Inspector in charge/Officer in charge, Kotshila Police Station until further order except for the purpose of attending Court proceedings. The applicant shall be personally present or shall be represented by his Counsel during hearing of the appeal and he shall surrender before the Trial Court as and when called for in connection with the present appeal.

8. The department is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Superintendent of the concerned Correctional Home for immediate release of the applicant/appellant unless he is wanted in connection with any other case.

9. We clarify that the observations made by us in this order are only for the purpose of disposing of the application for suspension of sentence and the same shall have no relevance at the final hearing of the appeal.

10. The application being CRAN 5 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of.

11. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)