Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010095152025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/813/2025 in Crl.A./289/2025 KHIROD HAZARIKA S/O- DONDI HAZARIKA R/O- BOROHA GAON PS. SAPEKHATI DIST- CHARAIDEO ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM 2:MOTI BULU GOGOI W/O - DILIP GOGOI R/O - PODUMONI BONGAON PS - KAMARBANDHA OUT POST - GOLAGHAT POLICE STATION DIST - GOLAGHAT 3:PRIYANKA GOGOI W/O - DIPJYOTI GOGOI D/O - DILIP GOGOI R/O - KHUMTAI (MATRIMONIAL HOME) PS - KHUMTAI OP KAMARGAON POLICE STATION Page No.# 2/4 DIST - GOLAGHAT ------------ Advocate for : MR PRAKASH SONOWAL Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 03.02.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. M Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 430 (2) of the BNSS, for suspension of the sentence passed pursuant to the impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Golaghat in Special (POCSO) Case No. 32/2021 arising out of Golaghat Police Station Case No. 199/2021, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The sentence that had been awarded to the applicant was rigorous imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years with a fine of 10,000/- (ten thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another one month. 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that the applicant and the victim were in love with each other and had married each other in a temple. They had also slept together after their marriage. However, as it transpired that the victim was 17 years 7/8 months old at the time of her marriage with the applicant, the applicant was charged with having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the victim’s mother, who was the informant. Page No.# 3/4 4. The applicant’s counsel submits that there was no intention on the part of the applicant to commit any crime and the sexual relationship between the applicant and the victim had occurred only after their marriage. He accordingly submits that bail should be granted to the applicant by suspending the sentence. 5. Mr. R R Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though the sexual relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual in nature, the victim was apparently 4 months short of being 18 years of age. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. On perusal of the evidence of the victim, which goes to show that the sexual relationship between the applicant and the victim had occurred after their marriage with each other, the sexual acts was consensual in nature. We have noticed that there was nothing to show that the applicant was aware that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of their marriage with each other. 8. Considering all the above, besides the fact that some time would be required for disposal of the connected appeal, inasmuch as, the paper book has also not been prepared till date, the applicant should be released on bail during the pendency of the connected appeal. 9. The applicant is accordingly released on a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand), with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 10. Consequently, the sentence awarded to the applicant pursuant to the impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Page No.# 4/4 Judge (POCSO), Golaghat in Special (POCSO) Case No. 32/2021 stands suspended, till final disposal of the connected appeal. 11. The instant interlocutory application accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant