Gauhati High Court
Uttam Mondal vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 17 November, 2025
Author: K. R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010029222023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/989/2023
in
Crl.A./380/2023
UTTAM MONDAL
S/O AMULYA MANDAL
VILL.- PAKRIGURI
P.S.- BIJNI
DIST.- CHIRANG
BTC
ASSAM
PIN- 783390.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE P.P.
ASSAM.
2:PURNA ARJYA
S/O LATE DUKHLAL ARJYA
VILL.- NO. 2 CHATIANGURI
P.S.- BIJNI
DIST.- CHIRANG
BTC
ASSAM
PIN- 783390.
------------
Advocate for : MR. A M AHMED
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
17-11-2025
(K. R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. S. H. Borah,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for bail under Section 389 CrPC.
3. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pursuant to the
judgment and sentence dated 16.12.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
Bijni, Chirang in Sessions Case No. 110(B)/2018 arising out of Bijni P.S. Case No.
133/2013, by which the applicant was sentenced under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of
the POCSO Act and ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of life and
sentenced to pay a fine with default stipulation.
4. It is submitted that for more than 3 (three) years the applicant has been
incarcerated in judicial custody after pronouncement of the judgment.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant cited the case of (i) The State of
Maharashtra and Anr., Vs. Dr. Maroti reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 898 and (ii)
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1999
SCC 4 421 and submitted that in the case of Dr. Maroti (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has held that the delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution and by
Page No.# 3/4
citing the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai (supra), it is submitted that when a
convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and he applies for bail, the
same is to be considered liberally.
6. In so far as the case of Dr. Maroti (supra) is concerned, on a query of the Court
that in which paragraph, the Supreme Court of India held that delay in lodging of the FIR
would be fatal, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the word 'fatal' is not
used for the prosecution. However, it is submitted that as the case is serious, it would
mean that the delay in lodging of the FIR would be fatal to the prosecution.
7. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant for
the reason that in the cited case, the respondent was a Doctor and said Medial
Practitioner was appointed for treatment of girls admitted in the concerned girls' hostel.
In course of his duty, he was aware of the fact that several inmates of the said hostel are
being subjected to sexual assault, but did not take any steps to report before the police.
Accordingly, he was arrayed as respondent No.6 in the prosecution and in the said case,
the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to the effect that as the offences are
serious in nature, it should be reported in promptitude. Therefore, the case in hand does
not help the applicant in any manner.
8. In so far as the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai (supra) in concerned,
the same is also not helpful to the applicant in any manner, because, in this case the fixed
tenure of sentence to the applicant in terms of specific period of time is not there. The
applicant was handed over sentence of life which would be reminder of his normal life.
9. Under such circumstances, applying the ratio in the case of Satender Kumar
Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2022 SC 3386), the applicant is not
found to become entitled to bail at this stage.
10. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was sexually assaulted when she
was a minor and the applicant married her during her minority and not only the victim
was pregnant, but she also delivered a child thereafter and everything happened during
the course of minority.
Page No.# 4/4
11. In view of the said prosecution case, the Court is of the considered opinion that the
applicant would not be entitled to bail at this stage.
12. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
