Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010024942026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/196/2026 KARTIK DAS S/O-LATE KHATISH DAS, R/O- VILL.- BISIMARI, P.O. P.S.- FAKIRAGRAM, DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR B.T.R., ASSAM, PIN-783345 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:RAJIT KR BISWAS S/O.- SUDHIR CH. BISWAS R/O. VILL.- RAMNATH PARA P.S.- TAMARHAT DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-7833321 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A MONDAL, MR A ISLAM,S I AKAND Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR S K SARKAR FOR R-2 Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 10.09.2026 Heard Mr. MA Mondal, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.K. Sarkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for suspension of the sentence and for allowing him to go on bail. The petitioner has prayed for suspension of sentence imposed upon him by judgment and order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Cum Special Judge, POCSO Dhubri, in Special Case No. 69/2017. By the said judgment and order, the applicant was convicted under Section 363 of the IPC as well as Section 4 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine and default stipulation under Section 363 IPC as well as to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine and default stipulation under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence was stated to be on 28.08.2017 and the ejahar was lodged on 04.09.2017 i.e. after a period of seven days and according to him, the same is fatal. He also submits that although PW1 had stated that the victim was of 14 years at the time of occurrence but the victim herself had stated that she was studying in Class-X during the occurrence, which shows that the victim would not be 14 years of age and that she is not a minor. He further submits that the age of the victim was not proved. He also submits that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim before the Trial Court as well as before the Magistrate and before Page No.# 3/4 the Police. 4. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had placed by showing that the birth certificate of the victim was seized and although the original one was returned in zimma to the relative of the victim but then the certificate was exhibited as Exhibit 4 and the same demonstrated that the victim was born on 25.12.2003 and at the time of occurrence, the victim was 15 years of age and was a minor. He has also placed the statement of the victim both before the Trial Court as well as the Magistrate and the same shows consistency. 5. Mr. S.K. Sarkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 by relying on the objection filed by him to the bail application had stated that victim is admittedly a minor and that she was 14 years of age when the incident took place. He had also stated that the statement of the victim is consistent before all the authorities and that it does not suffer from any contradiction so as to proof that the victim is not reliable. 6. I have heard the Counsels and also have gone through the records. 7. As far as the age is concerned, the birth certificate is seized and was exhibited as Exhibit 4 and the age of the victim as could be seen from the birth certificate was around 15 years and she is admittedly a minor. Her statement before the Trial Court and the statement before the Magistrate is also seen and in her statement she stated that while she was on her way to school, the applicant came with a vehicle forced her into the said vehicle and took her to place where he kept the victim for a period of seven days and that he raped her. 8. In view of the same, this Court does not deem it fit to suspend the sentence and to allow the petitioner to go on bail at this stage. 9. However the observations made herein will have no effect during final Page No.# 4/4 hearing of the case. 10. I.A. is as such dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant