Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/260/2026 of JAHANGIR ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 August 2026
GAHC010008812026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/260/2026 JAHANGIR ALI SON OF HASEN ALI R/O- VILLAGE- DAKHIN SANTINAGAR P.S.- NOONMATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY
GAHC010008812026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/260/2026
JAHANGIR ALI
SON OF HASEN ALI R/O- VILLAGE- DAKHIN SANTINAGAR P.S.- NOONMATI
DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ASSAM
2:BABUL HUSSAIN
SON OF LATE TOIMUDDIN SHEIKH R/O- VILLAGE- DAKHIN SANTINAGAR
P.S.- NOONMATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. M H ANSARI
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
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
17.08.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. S. Alim, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A.
Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspending the sentence to be undergone by the applicant, pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 14.11.2025 and sentence dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Sessions (Special) Case No.28/2022, arising out of Noonmati P.S. Case No.22/2022, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. The applicant’s counsel submits that the victim has not stated in his evidence that he had been subjected to anal intercourse. Further, the Doctor concerned had also in his evidence, had stated that there was only an attempt at penetration. He thus submits that Section 4 of the POCSO Act was not attracted. Further, the mother of the victim boy had not been made a witness, which vitiates the Prosecution case.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the victim boy had in his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement and Section 164 Cr.P.C statement, clearly pointed out the fact that the applicant had been the one who had inflicted anal intercourse upon him, thereby corroborating his evidence that some ‘bad act’ had been committed upon him. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor thus submits that the applicant should not be allowed to be released on bail due to there being no corroboration of the victim’s evidence by the medical evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. We have noticed that the victim had stated that the applicant had committed a ‘bad act’ upon him, without clarifying the ‘bad act’.
7. However, on considering the gravity of the offence, we are not inclined to allow the present petition at this stage, though the applicant is given the liberty to file a petition afresh when the TCR arrives.
8. I.A.(Crl.) is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant