Allowed

Rajesh Khan v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC14 Oct 2025I.A.(Crl.)/474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the sentence of conviction under POCSO Act and Section 64 BNSS and released the applicant on bail pending appeal, noting the evidence indicated a consensual relationship between parties and the delay caused by non-receipt of trial court records.

What did the court decide?

Suspended sentence and released on bail on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount.

Rajesh Khan Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010096842025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/474/2025

¶6

RAJESH KHAN

¶7

S/O. TAMEJ KHAN, R/O. NO. 2 MATHGHARIA, BORO CHOWK, P/O. NOONMATI, P/S. NOONMATI, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN-781020.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP ASSAM

¶10

2:PUTULI NATH HAJONG S/O. SRI BANDHAN HAJONG R/O. GEETAMANDIR HARIPUR P/O. AND P/S. NOONMATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781020

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A MOBARAQUE, MR. A M KHAN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

Linked Case : Crl.A./170/2025

¶14

RAJESH KHAN S/O. TAMEJ KHAN R/O. NO. 2 MATHGHARIA BORO CHOWK P/O. NOONMATI P/S. NOONMATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781020. VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

2:PUTULI NATH HAJONG S/O. SRI BANDHAN HAJONG R/O. GEETAMANDIR HARIPUR P/O. AND P/S. NOONMATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781020. -----------Advocate for : MR. A MOBARAQUE Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 15.10.2025

¶21

(M. Zothankhuma, J)

¶22

Heard Mr. A. Mobaraque, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

¶23

2. As per office note dated 28.05.2025, notice has been issued to the respondent No. 2 through the O.C. of concerned Police Station, vide memo dated 28.05.2025. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

¶24

3. This application under Section 430(1) BNSS, 2023, seeks suspension of the sentence passed against the present applicant/appellant and for his release on bail.

¶25

4. The applicant/appellant has also challenged the judgment dated 03.03.2025, passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

(POCSO), Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Sessions Special Case No. 269/2024. The applicant/appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 64 BNSS by the learned Trial Court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs.1 Lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, on the ground that he had a sexual relationship with a girl of 17 years.

¶28

5. The counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the evidence of the victim girl would show that the victim had forced the applicant to elope with her and as such, there was no forced sexual relationship with the victim, inasmuch as, the appellant had also married the victim by putting vermilion on the forehead of the victim. He also submits that as the Trial Court Records (TCR) had not been received by the Registry and as the hearing on the appeal would take a long time, it would be in the interest of justice, if the applicant is allowed to be released on bail, till final disposal of the appeal.

¶29

6. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the girl was 17 years of age and as she was a minor at the relevant point of time, the application should be dismissed.

¶30

7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶31

8. A perusal of the evidence of the victim girl, which is reflected in para 7 of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, shows that the consensual sexual relationship between the victim and the applicant/appellant had occurred, due to the victim forcing herself upon the applicant.

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

9. Para 7 of the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2025 is reproduced herein below as follows:-

¶34

“7. PW-2 is the victim, and claimed to know the accused stating further that they were dating for about three years prior to lodging of FIR. On August 31, she left her residence for school, but she ran into the accused while travelling by Siv Temple. She told him to take her with him over the phone, so he arrived there. Her elder sister discovered her affair with the accused through a message on her phone and reprimanded her because the accused is not of the same religion as her. Her family members were unaware of their relationship. She phoned the accused and accompanied him the following day. She insisted on going with him even though the accused urged her to stay at home and study for the following two years because she believed her family would never accept of her relationship with him. After that, the accused drove her to Panikhati on his black scooty, where they spent six days in a rented house. After the accused applied vermillion to her forehead the following day, they started to live as husband and wife. The accused and she had two sexual encounters during this time. The accused had sexual intercourse with her twice. When the accused called his father one day, he asked them both to attend to the police station since the police were harassing the accused‟s family and forcing them to provide their location. On 05.08.2024 morning she along with accused came to police station and after that they were interrogated. Afterwards she was sent for her medical examination and also recording of statement in Court. She gave a brief account of what happened to her to the doctor who took her medical history before to her checkup. Every statement she had made before aligned with her version. She was born on February 18, 2008, and she is currently enrolled in Geeta Nagar High School‟s Class X. She proved her statement recorded under section 183 of BNS as Ext.P1/PW2 and her original birth certificate as MO1. During her cross-examination, she stated that the accused was called by her. The accused promised to speak with her parents and advised her to remain at home for another two years. She considered herself to be at fault because she forced the accused to take her along.

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

The accused and she had a consenting physical relationship. The accused and she were taken to the police station by the accused‟s father.”

¶37

10. On considering the fact that the TCR has not been received by the Registry as on date, after which the paper book would have to be made, prior to having a hearing on the case, we are of the view that till the appeal is decided, the applicant/appellant should be released on bail. This is due to the fact that it does not appear to us that the applicant will abscond. Further, there is no question of tampering with the evidence. Accordingly, the applicant/appellant is released on bail on a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Consequently, the sentence imposed upon the applicant/appellant vide order dated 07.03.2025, pursuant to the judgment dated 03.03.2025, by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge (POCSO), Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Sessions Special Case No. 269/2024, is hereby suspended.

¶38

11. I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Rajesh Khan v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Khan v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Kisko Alias Hembrom Vs the State of Assam

Khireswar Sonowal Vs the State of Assam

Jibon Boro Vs State of Assam

Korna Bhumij Vs the State of Assam

Xxxxxxxx Vs Xxxxxxxx

Atul Saikia Vs the State of Assam and Anr.