Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/38/2026 of KHADEM ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 10 May 2026
GAHC010002012026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/38/2026 KHADEM ALI S/O - LT MONOWAR HUSSAIN R/O - VILL - BORO BHADEYAGURI P.O. - BHADEYAGURI P.S. - KOKRAJHAR DIST - KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM PIN - 783360 VERSUS THE
GAHC010002012026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/38/2026
KHADEM ALI
S/O - LT MONOWAR HUSSAIN R/O - VILL - BORO BHADEYAGURI P.O. - BHADEYAGURI P.S. - KOKRAJHAR DIST - KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM PIN - 783360
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP ASSAM
2:ALI HUSSAIN
S/O - LT JAHER ALI
R/O - VILL - BORO BHADEYAGURI
P.O. - BHADEYAGURI
P.S. - KOKRAJHAR
DIST - KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN - 78336
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, A R MONDAL,MR. S ISLAM,MR A
HAWARI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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
11.05.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, who submits that the applicant has been convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years, with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar, in Special POCSO Case No.57/2019, arising out of Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.211/2019.
2. The applicant’s counsel submits that the evidence of Prosecutrix and her brother shows that there was consensual sex between the parties, as they were in a relationship. Further, the age of the victim was around 18 years and the appellant was 20 years at the time of occurrence of penetrative sexual assault. He also submits that the evidence of the brother of the victim shows that an agreement had been executed between the parties, wherein the Prosecutrix and the appellant were to be married after the victim attained the age of majority. He further submits that the evidence shows that the appellant had come into the house of the Prosecutrix and taken her out after 8:00 p.m on 20.05.2019. The counsel for the applicant thus prays for suspension of the sentence and for release of the applicant on bail.
3. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on other hand submits that the victim was around 17 years 4 months at the time the incident occurred. The evidence of the victim before the learned Trial Court was corroborated by her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C and as such, the application should be rejected.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. A perusal of the evidence of the victim and her brother shows that the victim and the appellant were in a relationship and that there had been an agreement between the families of the appellant and the victim that they would be married of when the victim attained the age of 18 years. We have also noticed that while the agreement to marry had been executed on 16.02.2018, the FIR was lodged on 23.05.2019, i.e. after more than 15 months. The evidence of PW-1, who is the victim also shows that the appellant had gone to the house of the victim at night and had asked the victim to accompany him to a school after 8:00 p.m. The victim had gone on her own in the motorcycle of the applicant. We have also noticed that an agreement had been executed, where the appellant was to marry the victim on attaining the age of majority.
6. On considering all the above facts and taking into account that the applicant was earlier on bail during trial, the application of the applicant should be allowed. Accordingly, the applicant is granted bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar. Consequently, the sentence to be undergone by the applicant pursuant to the impugned judgment and order shall remain suspended, till disposal of the appeal.
7. I.A.(Crl.) is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant