Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/439/2026 of AJIBUR ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 14 June 2026
GAHC010024412026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/439/2026 in Crl.A./155/2026 AJIBUR ALI S/O FAJAR ALI R/O MADHUSOULMARI (ISLAMPUR) PART- I P.S.- GOURIPUR DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010024412026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/439/2026
in Crl.A./155/2026
AJIBUR ALI
S/O FAJAR ALI
R/O MADHUSOULMARI (ISLAMPUR) PART- I
P.S.- GOURIPUR
DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM
2:BIMALA TUDU
W/O ABRAHAM TUDU
R/O AHOMGAON
NEAR MANASHA MANDIR
P.S.- GORCHUK
DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR S H SIKDAR
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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 : 15.06.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. S.H. Sikdar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
Page No.# 2/2
2. The applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence under Section 430 of the BNSS in relation to the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2026, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M) in Sessions Special Case No. 99/2025, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 65(1) of BNS.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the applicant was 35 years of age, while the school going girl was only 15 years of age. Not only does it appear that the applicant has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim, but a girl child has also been born to the victim. The applicant is apparently having a wife, two minor children and his parents to look after.
5. Due to the above reasons, we are not inclined to allow the prayer for suspension of the sentence at this stage.
6. The I.A. is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant