Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010017922026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/353/2026 DULAL HIRA S/O LATE BIPLAB HIRA R/O- PACHATIYA WARD NO.2 P.S MORIGAON DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SRI RATNESWAR DAS S/O- LATE MISIMAL DAS R/O- BOGHORA SILSAKU P.S- MORIGAON DIST-MORIGAON ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A AHMED Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.06.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1 and Ms. D. Borpujari, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. The applicant/appellant has prayed for suspension of the sentence to be undergone by him in relation to the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon in POCSO Case No.101/2024, arising out of Morigaon P.S. Case No.127/2024. 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that the applicant and the victim were in love with each other and they even got married. However, on the victim learning that the applicant had been married earlier with children, the victim has now filed the present case as she got angry with the applicant. 4. The counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of the evidence given by the mother of the victim, the mother got married in the year 2003 and the victim was born in the year 2004. As the incident of penetrative sexual assault had occurred in the year 2024, the victim would have been 20 years on the date of the incident. He also submits that they lived together for 15 days prior to the Page No.# 3/4 applicant being arrested by the police. 5. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that as per school records the date of birth of the victim was 21.02.2007. As such, the victim would have been 17 years 3 months at the time of incident. He also submits that as per the Doctor’s report which had been made on the basis of X-ray, the victim was around 18 years of age. He submits that when it has been proved through the school records that the victim was below 18 years of age, there was no question of any consent being given by the minor child. He accordingly submits that the application should be dismissed. 6. Ms. D. Borpujari, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no.2 reiterates the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and submits that the application should be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 8. We have also noticed the evidence of the victim which is to the effect that the applicant and the victim had developed a liking towards each other and that they had lived together in Nagaon in the house of the sister-in-law of the applicant for a week. The applicant then took her to Meghalaya by bus and again stayed the house of the applicant’s paternal aunt for one week as husband and wife. Thereafter they came back to the house of the applicant and stayed there for 3 days as husband and wife. It was after the applicant had Page No.# 4/4 taken the victim to a paddy field that the police had recovered her. 9. On considering all the above facts, we are of the view that a deeper examination into the age of the victim would have to be gone into. However, as the victim was around 20 years as per the evidence of the mother and in terms of the evidence of the Doctor, the victim was around 18 years at the time of incident, we are of the view that the applicant should be granted bail. 10. Accordingly, the applicant is allowed to go on bail, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the sentence awarded under Section 366 IPC to the applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and the sentence imposed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 2 months, are suspended till final disposal of the appeal. 11. I.A.(Crl.) is accordingly allowed. 12. Any observations and findings made in this order shall not be construed to be the final observations and findings made by this Court at the time of hearing the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant