Gauhati High Court
Injamamul Hoque vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 12 November, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010182472024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/869/2024
INJAMAMUL HOQUE
S/O. MOZZAMEL HOQUE AHMED @ MOZZAMEL HOQUE
VILL.- KOKRAJHAR BAGHICHA GAON
P/S.- KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM
PIN-783370
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM
2:SUNIL CH. DAS
S/O. LATE GHATURAM DAS
VILL.- WARD NO. 2
SHANTI NAGAR
P/S.- KOKRAJHAR
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM
PIN-783370
------------
Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
Page No.# 2/4
Linked Case : Crl.A./300/2024
INJAMAMUL HOQUE
S/O. MOZZAMEL HOQUE AHMED @ MOZZAMEL HOQUE, VILL.-
KOKRAJHAR BAGHICHA GAON, P/S.- KOKRAJHAR, BTC, ASSAM, PIN-
783370
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:SUNIL CH. DAS
S/O. LATE GHATURAM DAS
VILL.- WARD NO. 2
SHANTI NAGAR
P/S.- KOKRAJHAR
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
BTC
ASSAM
PIN-78337
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A M AHMED,B DAS,MR. I U
CHOWDHURY,MR. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R K SARMA(R-2),MR T CHAKRABORTY(R-
2),MR. D CHOUDHURY (R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
12.11.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant/appellant,
who submits that the sentence imposed upon the applicant by way of the
Page No.# 3/4
impugned judgment dated 13.08.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge
(POCSO), Kokrajhar in Special Case No. 10/2022, convicting the
applicant/appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act should be suspended. He
submits that the facts of the case would show that the victim had eloped with
the applicant to Delhi and had stayed there for 10 days. As such, when the age
of the victim was alleged to be 17 years, which has been disputed by the
applicant, the applicant should be granted bail and the sentence should
consequently be suspended. He also submits that as on date the victim is
married and she is also having two children.
2. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P. and Mr. T.
Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the evidence
of the victim does not show that she had eloped with the applicant and on the
other hand, it appears that she had been kidnapped and made to undergo
forceful sexual intercourse by the applicant.
3. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, we
prima facie find that the testimony of the victim does not support the case of
the applicant. Further, it prima facie appears that the victim was below 18 years
at the time of the incident. The above being said, we notice that paper book has
been made and furnished to all the parties, due to which, hearing on the main
appeal can be done. As such, we are not inclined to allow the application for
suspension of the sentence under Section 430 BNSS at this stage.
4. The I.A., is accordingly rejected.
5. Any observations made in this order will not be considered to be the final
Page No.# 4/4
observations of this Court at the time of hearing of the main appeal.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
