Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010145412025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/792/2025 WASIM AKRAM @ RAJ @ WASIM KHAN SON OF LATE NURJAHAN ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARABARI, P/O. HABIBARANGABARI, P/S. MIKIRBHETA, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM-782103. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP ASSAM 2:PARBIN SULTANA WIFE OF LATE MUSTAK AHMED RESIDENT OF WARD NO 3 MILANPUR PACHATIA P/S. AND DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM-782105 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS R SAHIN, MR. P K SARMA,MS. B BHUYAN,MS M KAKOTY,S HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 26.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A. Page No.# 2/5 Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent no.1 and Mr. P. Teli, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 (informant). 2. The applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon, pursuant to the judgment dated 05.05.2025, convicting the applicant in POCSO Case No.127/2023. 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that as the applicant and the victim were having a love affair and as there is nothing to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age, the applicant should be released on bail. He also submits that the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 (informant), who is the mother of the victim, is to the effect that the deponent had arrived at a conclusion that for the sake of the victim, the misunderstanding of the informant, followed by her anger, resulted in the lodging of the FIR. The impugned judgment has thus caused irreparable loss to the life of the applicant. As the informant has no grievance against the applicant, the applicant may be released on bail. Further, it has been resolved that the matter would be amicably settled. 4. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the victim shows that though there appeared to be a love relationship between the applicant and the victim at the initial stage, the victim had subsequently rejected the continued sexual relationship with the applicant. However, due to blackmail and the subsequent leakage of videos and photos by the applicant, showing the victim in a compromising position, the victim was Page No.# 3/5 forced to continue having a sexual relationship with the applicant. She submits that the same goes to show that rape had been committed upon the victim, for which bail should not be granted. 5. Mr. P. Teli, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that as per instructions given to him by the informant (mother of the victim), the matter has been amicably settled between the family of the informant and the applicant. As such, he has got no comments to make. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. Paragraph nos.4 & 5 of the affidavit filed by the informant (mother of the victim) is to the following effect : “4. That, while lodging the same FIR the Deponent has stated that the Petitioner with a false promise took her daughter, committed physical relation and afterwards, the Petitioner made viral. In this regard the Deponent begs to clarify that though it happened between them, was out of their deep rooted relationship and in fact after passing of the judgement the Deponents daughter used to visit Jail Hazot frequently to see the Petitioner for her aforesaid relationship and the Deponent understand and realize that at this stage both are major and thinking of their marriage which is accepted by the Deponent without any force. The daughter of the Deponent rigid on such point if she will marry someone, then it will be the Petitioner. Hence, the Deponent thinking of their future filed this Affidavit-in-Opposition to release the Petitioner/Appellant on ball for the sake of their future. 5. That the Deponent begs to state that regarding issue involved in the Page No.# 4/5 FIR, Charge sheet and judgement and the facts, actually taken place, the Deponent has arrived at a conclusion that for the sake of her daughter, the Deponent misunderstanding followed by her anger, resulting lodging of the FIR and subsequently the judgement dated Md. Wasim Akram@ Raj @ Wasim Khan nay cause irreparabike loss and life ruining issue to the Petitioner. It is also stated by the Deponent as of now, has no grievance against the Petitioner. However on received of the intimation information about filing of the instant Criminal Appeal against the judgement and order passed by the Honble Learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (POCSO) in relation to the aforesaid FIR the Deponent has come to know about the pendency of the instant appeal and Immediately rushed to this Hon'ble court to file this Affidavit in Opposition, case” 8. A perusal of the above shows that the informant has got no objection to the bail being granted to the applicant. It is seen that in terms of the above two paragraphs, the informant is thinking of ensuring the marriage between the applicant and the victim. However, the same does not indicate that there has not been any rape committed by the applicant. 9. A perusal of the testimony of the victim (PW-1), as given in the impugned judgment, leads us to believe that initially there was a consensual sexual relationship between the applicant and the victim. However, on the attempt by the victim to withdraw from the same, the applicant leaked her videos and photos, in which she was shown in compromising positions. This, in our view, prima facie amounts to obtaining sex through blackmail and implies rape had been committed. Page No.# 5/5 10. On considering the above, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence imposed upon the applicant, pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon in POCSO Case No.127/2023. The application under Section 430 BNSS is accordingly dismissed. 11. Any observation or finding made by us in this order will not be construed to be the final observation or finding at the time of hearing of the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant