Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010003392025 2026:GAU-AS:1645- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/48/2025 SURAJ BARAIK S/O. MOHENDRA BARAIK, VILL. GHUNGOORBOND, CHANDIGHAT PART- III, UDHARBOND, P/S. UDHARBOND, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:MILON BARAIK S/O. LATE AJIT BARAIK VILL. LARSING T.E. P/S. UDHARBOND P/O. UDHARBOND DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788030 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S K CHHETRY, MR. M ISLAM,MR. N UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M BARMAN, LEGAL AID COUNSEL, R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 09.02.2026 (Nelson Sailo J) 1. Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. R. Page No.# 2/5 Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Ms. M. Barman, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. By filing this application, the applicant seeks suspension of the sentence of the judgment and order dated 4/12/2024 and the sentence passed by order dated 6/12/2024 passed by the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge, POCSO) Cachar, Silchar in Special (POCSO) Case No. 40/2022 by which the applicant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the materials available before the trial court and the decision arrived at, there is hardly any chance for sustaining the impugned judgment and order and the sentence imposed and therefore, the applicant should be released on bail after suspension of the impugned sentence. 4. Referring to the paper book which includes the evidence of the informant, the Prosecutrix as well as the Registrar of births, the learned counsel submits that the date of birth of the victim which is the very foundation for getting a conviction in a case under POCSO Act has not been established. 5. The Registrar of birth was examined as one of the Prosecution witnesses and the said witness has failed to show as to who had applied for the birth certificate of the victim. The father of the victim girl surprisingly also does not have any information or knowledge as regards the place of birth of the victim girl, despite being her father. 6. By further referring to the evidence of the defense witnesses, the learned counsel submits that there was a proposal for marriage from the girl's side but when the same was refused, they resorted to filing of the FIR. The materials on Page No.# 3/5 record also goes to show that the relationship between the victim and the appellant lasted over a year and without the age of the victim having been established, it can be safely presumed that the victim was not under age and there was consent on her part as well. He further submits that there are clear inconsistencies as regards the birth of the child to the victim. 7. In the evidence before the police, the victim was said to have a miscarriage and as per the victim girl herself, the baby died after 5 days of birth. While as per her father, who is the informant, the baby died after 2 or 3 days. With all such inconsistencies, the applicant is likely to be acquitted from the charge and under the circumstances, the applicant may be allowed to go on bail and the impugned sentence order be suspended. 8. Per contra Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public prosecutor submits that the applicant has failed to state any ground/grounds on which the application is filed for seeking suspension of the sentence and bail. All that has been mentioned is that he has been falsely implicated which alone is not sufficient to suspend the sentence and grant bail. 9. The learned counsel submits that the version of the victim girl is otherwise consistent that it is none other than the appellant himself who is responsible for the pregnancy and that victim was 17 years of age at the time of the incident as disclosed by her before the Trial Court. 10. To support the age of the victim girl, the Investigating Authority had seized abstract of the birth register of the tea garden concerned and later on, the Prosecution produced the register of birth before the Trial Court. The consistent stand about the incident and the age of the victim girl has not been shaken by the defense during the cross-examination in any manner and he Page No.# 4/5 therefore submits that pending final consideration of the appeal, the applicant may not be released on bail. 11. Ms. Barman, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 also adopts the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 12. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have perused the materials available on record. 13. In the present case, conviction is made under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused person examined 6 prosecution witnesses, while the defense examined 4 defense witnesses. The court has also examined a court witness as well who is the Registrar of birth and death. 14. The victim girl was examined as PW1 and in her examination in chief she has stated that she was in a physical relationship with the appellant and as a result of which, she became pregnant. She also stated that at the relevant time, she was 17 years of age. At the time of making her deposition i.e. on 21/03/2023, she stated that about 4 months ago, she had given birth to a baby girl child and after 5 days of birth, the child had died. 15. The version of the Prosecutrix has also been corroborated by the statements of the informant who is the father and the mother of the victim girl who were examined as PW2 and PW3 respectively. 16. Although, the learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out certain discrepancies as regards the knowledge of the incident by the parents and importantly, with regard to the age of the victim girl herself but having regard to the fact that the date of birth of the victim girl was said to be below 18 years from the extract of the birth register maintained by the tea garden and which Page No.# 5/5 again was reiterated by the Registrar of birth and further, having regard to the fact that the instant conviction is under Section 6 of the POCSO Act where the minimum punishment is 20 years imprisonment, we are of the considered view that the applicant has not made out any case for grant of bail at this stage. 17. The points raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in fact, can be considered by this court when the main appeal is taken up for consideration. 18. According to the instant application stands rejected and disposed of. 19. Any observation made in this order is for the purpose of considering the application for bail and suspention of the impugned sentence and therefore, the same shall not be taken into account when the main appeal is heard and decided on merit. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant