Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010045212026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/448/2026 BIBEK RAJMUKHI S/O- LATE BARUN RAJMUKHI R/O- VILL- HARIGAON P.S- TEZPUR DIST-SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. 2:BHULUNG NAYAK S/O- LATE ROBI NAIYAK R/O- VILL-KUSUM TULA P.S- JAMUGURI DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784114 PH- 709981573 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR BHASKAR DEORI, MR A KHANIKAR,MR B DEORI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./158/2026 BIBEK RAJMUKHI ALIAS NAYAK Page No.# 2/5 S/O- LATE BARUN RAJMUKHI R/O- VILL-HARIGAON P.S- TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM. 2:BHULUNG NAYAK S/O- LATE ROBI NAIYAK R/O- VILL-KUSUM TULA P.S AND P.O- JAMUGURI DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784114 PH- 7099815739 ------------ Advocate for : MR BHASKAR DEORI Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 25.06.2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. B.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application for suspending the sentence to be undergone by the Page No.# 3/5 applicant, pursuant to the impugned Judgment dated 19.09.2025 and Sentence Order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Sonitpur, Tezpur in Special POCSO Case No. 134/2024, arising out of Tezpur P.S Case No. 525/2024, by which the applicant had been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 65(1) of BNS. 3. The applicant’s counsel submits that a child was born to the victim and the applicant and they are now living in his house with his mother. He also submits that although the school certificate of the victim, who had studied till Class – VIII, shows the date of birth of the victim to be 20.10.2008, the said certificate has not been proved by the author who issued the said certificate or by comparing the same with the school records. He also submits that in terms of the Doctor’s report, the age of the victim as per X-Ray was around 18 years. As such, the appellant should be granted bail as the POCSO Act was not attracted. 4. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits upon instructions that he does not have any objection to the prayer of the applicant’s counsel being granted. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the victim was around 16 years of age, when the incident of the appellant having sexual intercourse with the victim occurred. He Page No.# 4/5 submits that there has been no objection to the date of birth of the victim as per the school certificate, which shows that she was a minor at the time of occurrence. As such, the prayer of suspension of the sentence should be rejected. 6. We have considered the submissions of the counsels for the parties and there is some dispute with regard to the exact age of the victim at the time of occurrence. In terms of the X-Ray report and the evidence of PW-7 (the Doctor), the age of the victim at the time of the incident was 18 years and as such, the issue needs further examination. 7. Accordingly, till the said issue is decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal, we are of the considered view that the applicant should be allowed to go on bail. The applicant is accordingly granted bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000/-, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the sentence to be undergone by the applicant in terms of the Judgment dated 19.09.2025 and Sentence Order dated 25.09.2025 in Special POCSO Case No. 134/2024, arising out of Tezpur P.S. Case No. 525/2024, shall remain suspended. 8. The applicant should not cause any discomfort to the victim or the child while on bail and if any discomfort is caused to them, the same should be Page No.# 5/5 reported to the Court by the counsel for the respondent No. 2. 9. I.A is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant