Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010155482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A.(Crl.)/747/2025 PRABIN PAUL @ PROBIN PAUL SON OF SRI KALACHAN PAUL RESIDENT OF GHUGHULONI AHOM BONGALI GAON PS. KHOWANG DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 785675. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:RAMDHAN KARMAKAR SON OF LATE SANKAR LAL KARMAKAR RESIDENT OF GHUGHULONI AHOM BONGALI GAON PS KHOWANG DIST DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN 785675 ------------ Advocate for : MS R SAHA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 11.08.2025 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam. 2. The instant interlocutory application is preferred seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-appellant and for his release on bail. 3. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 293/2025 against a Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC] –cum- Special Judge [POCSO], Dibrugarh [‘the Special Court’] in POCSO Case no. 52/2018. By the Judgment and Order dated 19.06.2025, the applicant- appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 354B, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act. In view of Section 42 of POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced under Section 354B, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 [three] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the applicant-appellant had been charged under Section 12 of POCSO Act and the presumption provided for in Section 29 of POCSO Act was not applicable in respect of a charge under Section 12 of POCSO Act. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the applicant-appellant was allowed to remain on previous bail in terms of Section 430[3] of BNSS, 2023. 5. As noted above, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat reported in [1999] 4 SCC 421, has held that when a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Page No.# 3/3 7. Having considered the projection made and the period of sentence passed against the applicant-appellant, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has made out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence pending disposal of the appeal. 8. It is, therefore, ordered that pending disposal of appeal, execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-appellant shall remain suspended and the applicant-appellant is allowed to be released on fresh bail subject to furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court. 9. The interlocutory application stands disposed of in the afore-stated terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant