Gauhati High Court

Crl.Rev.P./519/2026 of RASHIDUL KHAN ALIAS ROSHIDUL KHAN ALIAS ROSIDUL KHAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 6 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

GAHC010221852026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./519/2026 RASHIDUL KHAN ALIAS ROSHIDUL KHAN ALIAS ROSIDUL KHAN S/O- HABEJ KHAN R/O VILL GAREMARI BANIYARA PARA P.O.- GAREMARI, P.S.- BARPETA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM

GAHC010221852026

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./519/2026

RASHIDUL KHAN ALIAS ROSHIDUL KHAN ALIAS ROSIDUL KHAN

S/O- HABEJ KHAN R/O VILL GAREMARI BANIYARA PARA P.O.- GAREMARI, P.S.- BARPETA, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM PIN-781314

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.

2:ADARJAN NESSA

W/O- JAHIDUL ISLAM R/O VILL SILOCHI PATHAR P.O. PS.- BAGHBAR

DISTRICT BARPETA

ASSAM PIN-781308

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR T T MONI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

Date :07.10.2026

Heard Mr. AM Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. DP Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. By this application filed under Section 438/442 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, of the said Code, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 18.08.2026 passed in Special POCSO Case No. 04/2026 by the Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Barpeta, Assam.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that an application was filed before the Court of Special Judge POCSO, Barpeta by the petitioner where in it was stated that in view of the school certificate and the birth certificate, the petitioner be declared as juvenile. In pursuant to the said application, the school Head Master of the School from which the school certificate was issued was examined and summons were issued to the Registrar of Birth and Death Authority, Meghalaya for verification of the relevant birth record in connection with the birth certificate but despite issuance of summons, the same could not be served to the concerned authority.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed another application being petition no. 1176/2026 on 10.08.2026 stating inter alia by referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the age determination should be done according to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. In the said petition, it was stated further that the school Head Master was examined and there was no allegation that the school record was fabricated or manipulated. It was also stated that since the petition for claiming juvenility by the petitioner was pending since 28.05.2026 and many dates have gone by the said application be considered without any delay.

5. The learned Counsel however submits that pursuant to the said application, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner beforehand had made a submission before the concerned Court that the petition submitted vide petition no. 1176/2026 is not pressed by him and as such by order dated 18.08.2026, the learned Court i.e. In-Charge Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge POCSO, Barpeta had closed the matter as not pressed. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had engaged a new set of counsels and that new a set of counsels had not appeared on 18.08.2026 and the old set of Counsels had orally submitted that they do not want to press application and the application was closed.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was closed inadvertently and without knowing the facts of the case and as such, the said order be recalled and the learned Court may hear it afresh.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that since the Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation, the application made by the petitioner claiming juvenility should be considered in its true prospective.

8. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsels for both the parties, more so in view of the fact that the School Headmaster was already examined and the school certificate was there on record along with the birth certificate placed by the petitioner, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge POCSO, Barpeta is directed to hear the matter and decide on the aspect of juvenility as per the law. Further, it is the mandate of law that the issue of juvenility can be raised at any stage. Accordingly, on the ground shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 18.08.2026 is set aside and quashed with the further direction that the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge POCSO, Barpeta would hear the matter afresh on the application filed by the petitioner if any claiming juvenility as per the Act.

9. Petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead