Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010182472024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/869/2024 INJAMAMUL HOQUE S/O. MOZZAMEL HOQUE AHMED @ MOZZAMEL HOQUE VILL.- KOKRAJHAR BAGHICHA GAON P/S.- KOKRAJHAR BTC ASSAM PIN-783370 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SUNIL CH. DAS S/O. LATE GHATURAM DAS VILL.- WARD NO. 2 SHANTI NAGAR P/S.- KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTC ASSAM PIN-783370 ------------ Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Page No.# 2/4 Linked Case : Crl.A./300/2024 INJAMAMUL HOQUE S/O. MOZZAMEL HOQUE AHMED @ MOZZAMEL HOQUE, VILL.- KOKRAJHAR BAGHICHA GAON, P/S.- KOKRAJHAR, BTC, ASSAM, PIN- 783370 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:SUNIL CH. DAS S/O. LATE GHATURAM DAS VILL.- WARD NO. 2 SHANTI NAGAR P/S.- KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR BTC ASSAM PIN-78337 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A M AHMED,B DAS,MR. I U CHOWDHURY,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R K SARMA(R-2),MR T CHAKRABORTY(R- 2),MR. D CHOUDHURY (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 12.11 .2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant/appellant, who submits that the sentence imposed upon the applicant by way of the Page No.# 3/4 impugned judgment dated 13.08.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar in Special Case No. 10/2022, convicting the applicant/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act should be suspended. He submits that the facts of the case would show that the victim had eloped with the applicant to Delhi and had stayed there for 10 days. As such, when the age of the victim was alleged to be 17 years, which has been disputed by the applicant, the applicant should be granted bail and the sentence should consequently be suspended. He also submits that as on date the victim is married and she is also having two children. 2. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P. and Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the evidence of the victim does not show that she had eloped with the applicant and on the other hand, it appears that she had been kidnapped and made to undergo forceful sexual intercourse by the applicant. 3. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, we prima facie find that the testimony of the victim does not support the case of the applicant. Further, it prima facie appears that the victim was below 18 years at the time of the incident. The above being said, we notice that paper book has been made and furnished to all the parties, due to which, hearing on the main appeal can be done. As such, we are not inclined to allow the application for suspension of the sentence under Section 430 BNSS at this stage. 4. The I.A., is accordingly rejected. 5. Any observations made in this order will not be considered to be the final Page No.# 4/4 observations of this Court at the time of hearing of the main appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant