Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 17 February, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010233352022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/742/2022
AKTAR ALI AND 2 ORS.
S/O SEKAN ALI, VILL.- MAYERCHAR, PART- I, P.S.- BILASPARA, DIST.-
DHUBI.
2: MOYNAL HOQUE
S/O SEKAN ALI
VILL.- MAYERCHAR
PART- I
P.S.- BILASPARA
DIST.- DHUBI.
3: FAJLUL HOQUE
S/O SAMSUL HOQUE
VILL.- MAYERCHAR
PART- I
P.S.- BILASPARA
DIST.- DHUBI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
Linked Case : Crl.A./316/2022
AKTAR ALI AND 2 ORS.
S/O SEKAN ALI
VILL.- MAYERCHAR
PART- I
P.S.- BILASPARA
DIST.- DHUBI.
2: MOYNAL HOQUE
S/O SEKAN ALI
VILL.- MAYERCHAR
PART- I
P.S.- BILASPARA
DIST.- DHUBI.
3: FAJLUL HOQUE
S/O SAMSUL HOQUE
VILL.- MAYERCHAR
PART- I
P.S.- BILASPARA
DIST.- DHUBI.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY P.P.
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR. A K BHATTACHARJEE
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
17.02.2023
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Bhattacharjee,
learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for
the State respondent.
2. The applicants, namely, Aktar Ali, Moynal Hoque, Fajlul Hoque have filed this application
with prayer for bail and also with prayer for stay of operation of the impugned Judgment and
order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara in
connection with Sessions Case No. 118/2012 convicting and sentencing A-1 under Section
376 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with
default clause and convicting and sentencing A-2 and A-3 to under Section 366/34 IPC to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default
clause.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that a false case has been slammed against
them. The medico legal report of the victim clearly depicts that no injuries of sexual assault
were detected on examination of the victim. There is every possibility that the applicants may
be acquitted and their personal liberty will be curtailed if they are incarcerated only because
of the pendency of an appeal. It is also submitted that the evidence of the victim does not
inspire confidence and the trial Court has erred by convicting the applicants under the
aforesaid sections of law.
4. The applications have been co-operating with the trial and they were on bail during
the trial as well as during investigation. The FIR, which was lodged after 5(five) days also
cannot be relied upon. The evidence was not scrutinized properly by the trial Court. The
appellants are local residents and they will abide by any bail conditions imposed upon them.
5. The learned Addl. P.P. has raised objections stating that the trial Court has judiciously
passed the order. The evidence of the informant clearly incriminates the applicants.
Page No.# 4/4
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. I have also
perused the evidence on the record. The appellants are already convicted and sentenced
after a trial. I would not like to get into merit of this case, at this stage of pendency of the
appeal. I have carefully scrutinized the evidence and the impugned judgment.
7. At this juncture, the application stands rejected. In case there is delay in hearing the
appeal, the applicants are at liberty to prefer a petition for bail. The connected appeal will be
taken up for early hearing.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
