Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010029222023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No : I.A.(Crl.)/1343/2025 UTTAM MONDAL S/O- AMULYA MANDAL R/O- VILL - PAKRIGURI P.O. P.S. - BIJNI DIST. - CHIRANG BTR ASSAM PIN CODE - 783390 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM GAUHATI HIGH COURT ANOTHER. 2:SRI PURNA ARJYA S/O - LATEDUKHLAL ARJYA VILLAGE - NO. 2 CHATIANGURI P.O. P.S. - BIJNI DIST. - CHIRANG BTR ASSAM PIN CODE - 783390 ------------ Advocate for : MR. M U MAHMUD Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 Link Case No. : Crl.A./380/2023 UTTAM MONDAL S/O AMULYA MANDAL, VILL.- PAKRIGURI, P.S.- BIJNI, DIST.- CHIRANG, BTC, ASSAM, PIN- 783390. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:PURNA ARJYA S/O LATE DUKHLAL ARJYA VILL.- NO. 2 CHATIANGURI P.S.- BIJNI DIST.- CHIRANG BTC ASSAM PIN- 783390 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED, MS. D BORA,MS. B CHETIA,MR S H MAHMUD,MR S ISLAM,MR. M U MAHMUD,P. GHOSH,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR A N AHMED (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 03.02.2026 (K.R Surana, J) Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is a second application by the applicant under Section 430 of the BNSS for suspension of sentence passed vide judgment dated 16.12.2022, in Page No.# 3/5 Sessions Case No. 110(B)/2018, arising out of Bijni P.S. Case No. 133/2013. By the said judgment and sentence, the applicant who is the appellant in the connected Crl.A.380/2023, was convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo sentence only under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another 6 (six) months. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on an earlier occasion when application for suspension of sentence passed against the applicant was moved being I.A.(Crl.)/989/2023, the applicant did not raise the plea that the he had married to the victim. Accordingly, it has been submitted that on this said new ground, the present interlocutory application has been moved. In paragraph no. 4 of this interlocutory application, the following statements has been made, which verified to be true to the knowledge of the deponent in the affidavit filed in support of this application. The said paragraph in extracted below: That the applicant/appellant begs to state that Ld. Trial Court convicted the accused person even though it was a fit case for bail as the applicant has now married to the girl and they also have a child together. Moreover, the applicant was looking after the needs of both the wife and their child prior to his conviction by the Ld. Trial Court which has now caused severe financial and emotional hardship to both sides. 4. On the ground that pursuant to the sentence passed on 16.12.2022, though the applicant has married the victim, the applicant has been taken into custody and is serving sentence and thereby suffering incarceration for more than 3 (three) years, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the 4 (four) following cases: i. K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 Live Page No.# 4/5 Law (SC)1048. ii. Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chattisgarh, order dated 30th Jan, 2025, passed in Criminal Appeal NO(S). 41/2021 iii. Dasari Srikanth Vs. State of Telangana, order dated 15th May, 2024, passed in Criminal Appeal NO(S)._____ of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal No.(s). 2122 of 2024] iv. K. Dhandapani (s) v. State By the Inspector of Police (s) v. State By The Inspector of Police (s), 2022 SCC Online SC 1056. 5. It may be stated that in course of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner was given a fair and clear warning by the Court that he is making an attempt to mislead this Court, which he had denied and continued to make his submissions on merit. 6. Thus, having the heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite the warning, he was put to notice to the “further cross-examination of PW-2” available at page no. 20 of the paper book. In paragraph no. 1 of the further cross-examination, the PW-2, who is the father of the victim (name withheld to not disclose his identity), had stated that “the victim is presently married to another person. The victim had eloped and married about 11 (eleven) months ago.” Thus, not only the applicant has taken a false plea in paragraph no. 4 of this interlocutory application that the applicant has married the victim and they have a child together, but the learned counsel for the applicant, knowing the statement to be false, attempted to mislead this Court not only by repeating his submission that the applicant had married the victim, but also by citing the cases referred above. Page No.# 5/5 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant prays that he may be allowed to withdraw this interlocutory application. Notwithstanding that prayer to withdraw the application is allowed, but as the learned counsel for the applicant, despite being given notice that he is making false statement in an attempt to mislead the Court, continued with his submissions and therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant is put to notice as to why a criminal contempt should not be registered against him for making misleading the Court with false submissions, knowing it to be false,and thereby affecting administration of justice. The said matter would be taken up by way of registering an another interlocutory application. 8. Accordingly, the Registry shall register a separate interlocutory application for hearing the learned counsel for the applicant on the query of the Court. 9. It is clarified that the learned counsel for the applicant is at liberty to reserve his right to reply only after the contempt case is formally registered. 10. This interlocutory application stands dismissed on withdrawal however with a direction to register another interlocutory application to consider the query of the Court. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant