Gauhati High Court
Rakesh Kumar Paul vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 29 April, 2026
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010060392026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/319/2026
RAKESH KUMAR PAUL
S/O LATE RANJIT KUMAR PAUL. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SANGRILLA,
HOUSE NO. 47, SHAKTIGARH PATH ,BYE LANE NO. 3, PO AND PS
BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI 781005 ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY PP ASSAM
2:BEDANTA BIKASH DAS
S/O LATE NANDESWAR DAS
RESIDENT OF MAJGAON
TEZPUR PS TEZPUR
DIST SONITPUR ASSAM 78431
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A BHATTACHARYA, MR. D DAS SR. ADV,MR S PAUL,MS
ANKITA SAHARIA,MS. K MALAKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, P. KATAKI, PP,MR. P. KATAKI, SPECIAL PP ASSAM
Linked Case : Crl.A./420/2024
RAKESH KUMAR PAUL
S/O LATE RANJIT KUMAR PAUL.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SANGRILLA
HOUSE NO. 47
SHAKTIGARH PATH
BYE LANE NO. 3
PO AND PS BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI 781005 ASSAM
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/5
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:BEDANTA BIKASH DAS
S/O LATE NANDESWAR DAS
RESIDENT OF MAJGAON
TEZPUR PS TEZPUR
DIST SONITPUR ASSAM 784313
------------
Advocate for : MR. A BHATTACHARYA
Advocate for : MR. P.P. DUTTA
SPECIAL PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
Date : 29.04.2026
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also
heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Special PP, Assam, assisted by Mr. P. P. Dutta,
learned Special PP for the State.
2. The applicant has prayed for bail on the ground that the applicant has
served more than half the sentence of imprisonment that can be inflicted upon
the applicant, in terms of Section 31(2)(a) Cr.PC. He submits that though the
applicant was convicted under four different Sections of law, two under the P.C.
Act and two under the IPC read with section 120-B IPC, wherein none of the
individual sentences that could be inflicted was beyond 10 years, the learned
Trial Court has directed that the sentences should run consecutively, thereby
making an aggregate consecutive sentence of 31 years.
Page No.# 3/5
3. The applicant’s counsel submits that in terms Section 31(2)(a) Cr.PC, no
person can be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of more than 14 years.
As the learned Trial Court has directed that the appellant should be imprisoned
for 14 years and the applicant has completed more than 7 years as on date, he
should be released on bail. In support of his submission, he has relied upon
various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, that is Satender
Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported
in (2022) 10 SCC 51, Soudan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported
in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3259 and the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Inaocha Singh vs. the NIA in I.A.(Crl.) 600/2022.
4. Section 31 Cr.PC, states as follows.
“31. Sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial.
(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the
Court may subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments
prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments
when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of
the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that
such punishments shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the
Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences
being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction
of a single offence, to send the offender for trial before a higher Court :
Provided that –
(a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a
longer period than fourteen years;
(b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of
punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence.
Page No.# 4/5
(3) For the purpose of appeal by a convicted person, the aggregate of the
consecutive sentences passed against him under this section shall be deemed
to be a single sentence.”
5. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant aggregating 31
years is as follow:-
“i. Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988: (RI) for 7 years
ii. Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 (RI) for 10 years
iii. Section 420 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC: (RI) for 7 years
iv. Section 468 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC: (RI) for 7 years”
6. Section 31(2)(a) Cr.PC states that no person shall be sentenced to
imprisonment for a period longer than 14 years. However Section 31(2)(b) Cr.PC
allows for aggregate punishment not exceeding twice the amount of punishment
for a single offence.
7. In the present case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(2) of
the P.C. Act is for 10 years, which in terms of Section 31(2)(b) Cr.PC could be 20
years, as the aggregate punishment can be for 20 years as per Section 31(2)
(b). In that case, half the punishment for grant of bail in terms of the judgments
mentioned above, in relation to Section 436A Cr.PC would require the appellant
to have completed 10 years of imprisonment.
8. The above is a prima facie observation made by this Court, which requires
further deliberation and clarification, inasmuch as, there seems to be a
dichotomy between Section 31(2)(a) Cr.PC and Section 31(2)(b) Cr.PC.
Page No.# 5/5
9. The above being said, we have also been made aware of the Notification
No. 2 dated 03.02.2026, issued by the High Court, which states as follows:-
“NOTIFICATION NO. 2
Dated: Guwahati, the 3rd February, 2026
In continuation of Notification dated 17 th September, 2019 bearing Memo No.
HC.XI-07/2019/61/RC, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has been pleased to notify that
appeals arising out of the same trial court judgment shall be heard by the Division
Bench irrespective of the quantum of sentence (for example, one or more accused
receiving sentences of imprisonment of more than ten years and the remaining
accused receiving sentences of imprisonment of less than ten years).
This Notification shall come into force immediately.
By Order
Sd./- Raktim DuarahREGISTRAR GENERAL”
10. As such, the connected appeals may have to be tagged along with this
case.
11. Accordingly, list the matter on 28.05.2026.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant