Md. Nasir Ali @ Nasiruddin Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 314 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010252282019




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

                              Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/920/2019
                                        In Crl.A. 419/2019


         MD. NASIR ALI @ NASIRUDDIN AHMED
         S/O- MD. RAFIK ALI
         R/O- VILL.- SURADI
         P.S. AND DIST.- NALBARI
         ASSAM.

          VERSUS

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

         2:MS. MINA BIBI
         W/O- LATE FERO ALI
         VILL.- SURADI
          MOUZA- NAMBORBHAG
          P.S. AND DIST.- NALBARI
         ASSAM.

          ------------
          Advocate for : MR. N BARMAN
         Advocate for : PP
          ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
                                                                                       Page No.# 2/2


                                      BEFORE
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
                                           :: O R D E R ::

01.02.2021 [N. Kotiswar Singh, J] Heard Mr. N. Barman, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. R. Chetry, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for enlarging the applicant, namely, Md. Nasir Ali @ Nasiruddin Ahmed on bail after the applicant was convicted under Section 376(2)(i) IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

3. We have perused the judgment and gone through the records.

4. The victim had clearly identified the applicant in her deposition as well as in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The fact that she (the victim) is a minor, aged about 13 years is also not disputed.

5. There is also a mention of medical report that there is evidence of forceful vaginal penetration which has been reflected in para 12 of the judgment.

6. Though the applicant/appellant has mentioned of various discrepancies in the evidence, we are of the view that these can be examined at the time of hearing but in view of above finding, we are not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the present Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

                                       JUDGE                                          JUDGE


Comparing Assistant