Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/1170/2025 of ARIFUL ALI @ INAMUL HOQUE AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. on 16 September 2026
GAHC010236162025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1170/2025 ARIFUL ALI @ INAMUL HOQUE AND ANR S/O. WASHKURANI @ WAZ KURANI @ OWAJ KURANI, R/O. VILLAGE - BARUK MANIKPUR, BUJRUK MANIKPUR, P S.- KRISHNAI, DISTRICT
GAHC010236162025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1170/2025
ARIFUL ALI @ INAMUL HOQUE AND ANR
S/O. WASHKURANI @ WAZ KURANI @ OWAJ KURANI, R/O. VILLAGE - BARUK MANIKPUR, BUJRUK MANIKPUR, P S.- KRISHNAI, DISTRICT - GOALPARA, ASSAM.
2: TEPERA @ SAHABUL ALI @ SAHABUL HOQUE
S/O. LT. SUTU SHEIKH @ TAFIRUDDIN SHEIKH
R/O. VILLAGE - SAKOMARI
P.S.- KRISHNAI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:NASIMA BIBI
W/O. MD. RAJU ALI
R/O. VILLAGE - SAKOMARI
P.S.- KRISHNAI
DISTRICT - GOALPARA-783126
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S K CHHETRY, MR H R A CHOUDHURY,MR. M ISLAM,MR.
N UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./402/2025
ARIFUL ALI @ INAMUL HOQUE AND ANR
Page No.# 2/4
S/O. WASHKURANI @ WAZ KURANI @ OWAJ KURUNI
R/O. VILLAGE - BARUK MANIKPUR
BUJRUK MANIKPUR
P.S.- KRISHNAI
ASSAM.
2: TEPERA @ SAHABUL ALI @ SAHABUL HOQUE
S/O. LT. SUTU SHEIKH @ KAFIRUDDIN SHEIKH
R/O. VILLAGE - SAKOMARI KHAMAR
P.S.- KRISHNAI
DISTRICT - GOALPARA
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM.
2:NASIMA BIBI
W/O. MD. RAJU ALI
R/O. VILLAGE - SAKOMARI
P.S.- KRISHNAI
DISTRICT - GOALPARA-783126
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR S K CHHETRY
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NCHUMBEMO MOZHUI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 17-09-2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants/appellants assisted by Mr. N. Uddin. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P appears for the State.
2. The present application for suspension of the sentence being undergone by the applicants/appellants pursuant to the Judgment dated 27/08/2025 and Order dated 02/09/2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No.139/2017 has been filed, basically on the ground of there being no injury on the victim who is a married lady, there was no proof that she was gangraped.
3. The learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that a plea of juvenility has been taken by one of the two convicts, i.e, Ariful Ali @ Inamul Hoque in I.A. (Crl.) 1169/2025. The learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants/appellants further submits that there is a delay of 2 days in filing the FIR which gives rise to a suspicion that there has been embellishment in the FIR submitted by the informant in connivance with the victim. He accordingly prays that the sentence should be suspended and bail should be granted to the applicants/appellants.
4. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. P.P, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses all point towards the applicants being the perpetrators of the crime of committing gangrape upon the victim. Further, the absence of injury mark on the body of the victim does not ipso facto mean that no rape had been committed upon the victim. The offence being serious and heinous in nature, the suspension of sentence would send a wrong message to the society at large and encourage criminals to commit such types of cases in the future. She also submits that in case of sexual assault, delay in filing the FIR has to be considered more leniently than in any other case.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. On considering the evidence of the victim, we are at this stage not inclined to allow the application. Further, Paper Book having been received by the parties, the main appeal has been fixed for hearing on 08/12/2026.
6. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is rejected. However, any findings or observations made in this order shall not be construed to be the final observations or findings at the time of hearing the main appeal.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant