In bail application under Section 430 of BNSS 2023 for suspension of sentence, Gauhati High Court allowed application and enlarged petitioner on bail pending appeal after considering lack of proof that victim was minor and sentence details.
Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety to satisfaction of trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010262992025
2026:GAU-AS:13779
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1293/2025
MD RAHIM ALI S/O. MD. WAZUDDIN ALI @ MD. OWEJUDDIN ALI, VILLAGE - PUBPAR JATIA BHANGARA, P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:HAMIDA BEGUM W/O. NAJRUL ALI VILLAGE - PUBPAR JATIA BHANGARA P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI DISTRICT - KAMRUP ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S K CHHETRY, MR. N UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS. S KHATANIAR (AMICUS CURIAE, R2)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
16.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mrs. S.
Page No.# 2/4
Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
2. By this application filed under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner has prayed for suspension of the sentence imposed upon him and for his release on bail. The petitioner seeks suspension of the sentence imposed by the judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangia, Kamrup in Special (P) Case No. 34/2019. By the said judgment and order, the applicant was convicted under Sections 448 and 354B of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months under Section 448 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 354B of the IPC along with fine and default stipulation. The applicant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years under Section 8 of the POCSO Act along with fine and default stipulation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in the instant case the age of the victim girl was not proved in accordance with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
4. By referring to the testimony of the Investigating Officer, the learned counsel submits that the Investigating Officer had clearly deposed before the learned trial Court that the school certificate seized by him was a photocopy and that he had not compared the same with the original. The Investigating Officer had further deposed that he had not examined the author of the said school certificate.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer had clearly stated that no ossification test was conducted to determine the age of
Page No.# 3/4
the victim.
6. Mrs. S. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 however submits that the school certificate was seized by the police and was exhibited as Material Exhibit No. 2 wherein the date of birth of the victim was shown as 27.11.2005. She submits that as the occurrence took place on 20.10.2019 the age of the victim at the relevant time would be around 14 years.
7. Mr. B. Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State also submits that the school certificate seized by the Investigating Officer clearly establishes that the victim was a minor at the relevant time.
8. It is seen from the records of the case that the mother of the victim had stated that the age of the victim was around 14 years. The school certificate was seized by the Investigating Officer, however, the same has been found to be a photocopy which was issued in the year 2018. It is further seen that the total sentence imposed upon the petitioner is 4 years and that out of the said sentence the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of about 1½ years. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the sentence imposed is for a fixed term and there is little likelihood of the appeal being heard within the said period the convict-appellant may be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
9. As such, this Court finds it fit to suspend the sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Rangia, Kamrup in Special (P) Case No. 34/2019. Consequently, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with one local surety of the like
Page No.# 4/4
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10. I.A. is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in suspending the sentence imposed upon the petitioner and granting bail during pendency of appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md Rahim Ali S/o. Md. Wazuddin Ali @ Md. Owejuddin Ali
The State of Assam
Hamida Begum W/o. Najrul Ali
Shamima Jahan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
