Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010027692026 2026:GAU-AS:9903 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/213/2026 MD. RASHIDUL ISLAM S/O HAZRAT ALI, R/O VILL- BAGALIPARA, P.O.- BANGALPARA, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:AJUFA W/O FARJUL ISLAM VILL- BAGALIPARA P.O.- BANGALPARA P.S.- LAHARIGHAT DIST- MORIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS F INTAZ,MR. W A SHEIKH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY (AMICUS CURIAE)(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 20-07-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. M.A. Sheikh for the applicant Md. Rashidul Islam, who has filed this application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/4 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail and also for suspension of sentence in connection with POCSO Case No. 75/2024. 2. It is submitted that vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2026 in POCSO Case No. 75/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon, the applicant/appellant was convicted under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 (Four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with default stipulation. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant/appellant that it is ex facie apparent that the applicant/appellant was engaged to the victim. It is submitted that the dispute arose when the applicant/appellant used to mention to the victim that he would marry her. The applicant/appellant was asked not to harass the victim, but allegedly the applicant/appellant used to meet the victim on her way to the school and harassed her. 4. It is submitted that the statement of the witnesses also reveals that the victim was referred as bow by the applicant’s/applicant’s sister as both were engaged to be married. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant is only 19 (Nineteen) years old and he has also undergone 7 (Seven) months of the sentence imposed upon him vide the impugned judgment and order. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R.J. Baruah has raised serious objection against the applicant’s/appellant’s prayer for bail and suspension of sentence. It is submitted that no infirmity is discernible in the decision of the learned Trial Court. The applicant/appellant is not entitled to bail considering the Page No.# 3/4 gravity of the offence. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae Ms. B. Choudhury for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that five witnesses have consistently deposed that the applicant/appellant has committed an offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 7. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have also considered the submissions that the petitioner has undergone a part of the sentence for 7 (Seven) months. At this stage, the merits of the case are not required to be discussed as the appeal is yet to be decided. 8. However, considering the entire aspect of the matter, it appears that the applicant/appellant, who is only 19 (Nineteen) years old, may be granted bail and the operation of the conviction and sentence may be suspended. 9. Thereby, in view of the foregoing discussions, the applicant/appellant Md. Rashidul Islamn is enlarged on bail on a furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and the operation of the conviction and sentence vide the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon in POCSO Case No. 75/2024 is suspended till further orders. 10. In terms of the above observation, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant