Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/338/2026 of ANIL BHARALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 7 May 2026
GAHC010048862026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/338/2026 in Crl.A./121/2026 ANIL BHARALI S/O LATE PADMANATH BHARALI R/O DAHATI BARPETA TOWN P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
GAHC010048862026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/338/2026
in Crl.A./121/2026
ANIL BHARALI
S/O LATE PADMANATH BHARALI
R/O DAHATI BARPETA TOWN
P.O. AND DIST. BARPETA ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM.
2:SRI MRIGANKAR DAS
S/O. GAUTAM DAS
R/O. METUAKUCHI
P/O. AND P/S. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM PIN-781301
------------
Advocate for : MR. A CHOUDHURY
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 : 08.05.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. PP, Assam.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 430 B.N.S.S., for suspending the sentence imposed upon the applicant, pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Court of the Additional Session Judge -cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Barpeta, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 109/2024, arising out of Barpeta PS Case No. 215/2025.
3. The counsel for the applicant submits that a reading of the cross- examination of PW-2, who is the victim, is to the effect that the appellant did not insert his penis into his mouth and that he did not raise any protest outside the office, where the incident of penetrative sexual assault had occurred. Further, the victim did not know what was written in the FIR lodged by the informant. Also, the police did not seize the half pant of the victim and though the police had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., on the night of the incident, his statement in the Court was recorded only after two days.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the above does not prove that there had been any penetrative sexual assault on the victim.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the evidence of the victim is to the effect that the private parts of the appellant had been inserted into his anus and the medical officers' evidence corroborated the fact that there had been penetration of the anus of the victim. The APP accordingly submits that there being a prima facie case against the applicant, the application should be rejected.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The suspension of sentence on conviction of an accused cannot be allowed lightly, even if a prima facie case is made out by the applicant.
8. In the present case, we find that the allegation of penetrative sexual assault has been corroborated by the medical evidence.
9. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to allow this application at this stage. As such, the application is rejected.
10. The above being said, any observation and finding made by us in this order should not be construed to be the final observation or findings of this Court, at the time of hearing the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant