Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010036222025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/197/2025 SATISH MEDHI S/O LATE BHOGIRAM MEDHI, VILL.- SOBANCHAH, P.S.- HAJO, DIST.- KAMRUP (RURAL), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2:NIRU BAISHYA W/O JOGEN BAISHYA R/O SUBANCHAH P.S.- HAJO DIST.- KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR NIKUNJA KUMAR SARMA, MS PADMINI BARUA,MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV.,MR. R KALITA,MS S JAIN,MR P DOLEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SIRAJ CHOUDHURY (R-2) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 10.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Soren, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for suspension of sentence and for allowing the applicant to go on bail. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected to this application stating that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the applicant. 4. The 23 years old victim girl was raped on the day of occurrence by the applicant, while she was sleeping on the day of occurrence. On the same day, she was subjected to medical examination, the report of the doctor did not support the allegation of rape. 5. Therefore the victim girl was again produced before another doctor after 5 days of the occurrence on 29.11.2014 for her examination, this time the report went in favor of the prosecution. 6. During the trial, the doctor whose report went in favor of the prosecution was examined as a prosecution witness, but the doctor whose report did not help the prosecution he was not examined as a witness. Even the Investigating Officer did not know that the victim girl was examined by another doctor on 29.11.2014. Page No.# 3/3 7. I have considered the aforesaid facts. 8. I have also gone through the impugned Judgment. 9. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. 10. The prayer of the applicant is allowed 11. It is hereby directed that the sentence imposed upon the applicant Satish Medhi by the learned Sessions Judge, Amingaon in Sessions Case No.28/2015 shall remain suspended till disposal of the connected appeal. 12. The applicant Satish Medhi shall be released on bail of Rs.20,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. 13. The I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant