Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010151762026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/739/2026 ISLAM ALI @SAHIL SON OF MD. JAMAL ALI RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 248 KATABARI KABARSTHAN P.S. GORCHUK DISTRICT - KAMRUP M ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM. 2:MD ISLAM ALI SON OF ROJO ALI RESIDENT OF KATAHBARI 1 NO. KABARSTHAN P.S. GORCHUK DISTRICT - KAMRUP M ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR N J DAS Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Mr N J Das, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this application the applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence, imposed on the applicant in the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2026, passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M), at Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 1017 of 2019 and for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court had allowed the applicant to remain on previous bail for a period prescribed for preferring an appeal against the said judgment and order of this case. It is provided under Sub-Section (3) of Section 430 of the BNS, 2023, that when a convict is sentenced to an imprisonment of not more than 3 (three) years, the Trial Court should allow the convicted person to remain on previous bail till he files the appeal before the appellate Court. The exercise has been done in the instant case. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is contradiction in the statement of the victim before the Police and before the Trial Court. He submits that before the Police, the victim had not stated that she was touched by the applicant on being taken inside the vehicle after every 10 minutes, but before the Trial Court she had stated as such. Accordingly, he submits that the statement of the victim does not inspire confidence of this Court. He also submits that the evidence of the defence witnesses was not taken into account and that there are enmity between the two families, one being the accused person and the other being the victims. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and bail of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Ms S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that the statement of the victim as far as the root of the case Page No.# 3/3 is concerned, is consistent before the authorities and as such, she submits that the petitioner may not be released on bail. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is seen that the conviction of the applicant is given under Section 8 of the POCSO and he was sentenced for a period of 3 (three) years and this Court has also noticed the contradictions in the statement of the victim, on a prima facie reading of the same. As such, this Court deems it fit to suspend the sentence and allow the petitioner to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with one local surety to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. 7. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant