Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 4 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010085062025
2025:GAU-AS:14901
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/406/2025
RAMESH CHANDRA KALITA
S/O. LT. ANIL KUMAR KALITA, R/O. VILL.- BALASARA, P/S. DUDHNOI, PIN-
783124, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:PRANATI NATH
D/O. NIRON NATH
W/O. BIPUL NATH
OCCUPATION AND ADDRESS- PROTECTION OFFICER (I.C) COUNSELLOR
OFFICE OF DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT
GOALPARA
DIST. AND P/S. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN-783101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J K ROY, MR. R SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
04.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the
appellant/applicant. Also heard Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Ms. R.B Bora, learned Legal
Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.
2. This instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 for suspension of the sentence and to
allow the appellant/applicant to go on bail during the pendency of
the connected criminal appeal.
3. The connected criminal appeal has been filed assailing the
judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 and order of sentence dated
09.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, No.2, Goalpara in
Special (POCSO) Case No.59/2019 in (Dudhnoi P.S Case
No.120/2019) convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under
Section 354 A(i) of IPC, R/W Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits
that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant
case as his evident from the depositions of the witnesses in the
case. He submits that there are material contradictions in the version
of the alleged victim as well as other witnesses in the case.
5. He submits that the alleged victim though has stated in her
Page No.# 3/6
deposition that the accused appellant though being a teacher had
inappropriately touched her on many occasions, she did not
complaint about the aforesaid incident to her parents after the
incident. He submits that though in her deposition, she stated that
the alleged offences continued for more than three months, it is
surprising that the alleged victim did not report the same to her
parents.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant further
submits that the FIR was lodged by one Pranati Nath, Protection
Officer (I.C) Counsellor, District Child Protection Unit, Goalpara on
receipt of certain information about abuse of children by two class
teachers namely Gopal Sharma and Ramesh Kalita, the accused
appellant.
7. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid informant
neither interacted with the alleged victim nor her statements were
examined by her as the same is apparent from the deposition of the
victim girl during her cross-examination.
8. He submits that in her deposition, during cross-
examination, the victim girl had especially stated that the day when
the informant/ Child Protection Unit with her staff came to her
School, she was absent from School. She further deposed that those
people never came to meet and ask about the occurrence on a later
date.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant further
submits that the PW-2, Ms. Anisha Das, who supposed to have been
Page No.# 4/6
abused by the accused appellant, in her deposition, specifically
stated that she did not state anything against the accused appellant
i.e. Ramesh Kalia.
10. He further submits that due to the apparent contradictions
in the version of the witnesses, the accused appellant has a fair
chance for getting a favorable order in the instant appeal from this
Court. Therefore, he prays that judgment and order dated
07.04.2025 and sentence order dated 09.04.2025 should be
suspended till the connected criminal appeal is heard by this Hon'ble
Court and to allow him to go on bail during the pendency of the
connected appeal.
11. Ms. R.B Bora, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2 has submitted that there is no error in the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 and sentence order dated
09.04.2025. Therefore, she prays that the judgment and order dated
07.04.2025 and sentence order dated 09.04.2025, should not be
suspended and the accused appellant should not be granted bail.
12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that there is nothing wrong in the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 07.04.2025 as there are sufficient materials against the
accused appellant for his conviction in the instance case. Therefore,
he opposes the prayer for suspending the judgment and order dated
07.04.2025 and sentence order dated 09.04.2025, by allowing the
accused appellant to go on bail.
13. This Court has gone through the TCR containing various
Page No.# 5/6
materials including the evidences of the witnesses and the victim
girl. From the evidences, it is seen that the informant had filed the
FIR on the basis of certain information received about the alleged
unwarranted conduct of the accused appellant against his students
in the School. However, it is also seen that the victim girl though had
supposedly reported about such incidents to her mother, but her
mother did not take any action regarding that, in fact, she was sent
to the house of the accused appellant wherein she was staying as
paying guest even after the occurrence of the incidents.
14. In fact, it is also seen that after the report of the incident to
the mother of the victim, the mother again sent her to the house of
the accused appellant and it is also stated by the victim girl that
thereafter, nothing wrong was done by the accused appellant.
15. It is also seen from the deposition of the victim girl that
without verifying the facts about allegations, the informant had filed
the FIR before the police.
16. It is also seen that the PW-3 in her deposition stated that
she did not have any complaint against the accused appellant.
17. Considering the evidences available as well as the materials
brought before this Court and hearing the submissions of the
respective counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that
the judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 and sentence order dated
09.04.2025 should be suspended till the connected criminal appeal is
finally heard by this Court.
18. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid finding, the accused
Page No.# 6/6
appellant is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of
Rs.20,000/- with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned Special Judge, No.2, Goalpara with the condition that in
the event of the dismissal of the connected Criminal Appeal, he shall
surrender before the learned Special Judge, No.2, Goalpara for
serving the remaining part of the sentence as directed by the
learned Special Judge, No.2, Goalpara vide its judgment and order
dated 07.04.2025 and sentence order dated 09.04.2025.
19. With the above observations, this interlocutory application
stands allowed and stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
