Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010085742025 2025:GAU-AS:6281-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/420/2025 SUNIRAM HEMBROM S/O- KABIRAJ HEMBROM, R/O- VILL- BISHNUPUR, P/S. TAMULPUR, DIST- BAKSA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I U CHOWDHURY, MR. A AHMED,MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 19.05.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J] Heard Mr. I.U. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party-respondent. 2. The instant interlocutory application is preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal, which is yet to be registered and numbered. Page No.# 2/2 3. The connected criminal appeal has been preferred by the applicant-appellant under Section 415[2] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against a Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa at Mushalpur in Sessions Case no. 02/2018. The applicant-appellant faced the trial in Sessions Case no. 02/2018 for charges under Section 326 and Section 302, Indian Penal Code [PIC]. After the trial, the learned Sessions Court has convicted the applicant-appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 2 [two] months. 4. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application, more particularly, paragraph 2 thereof explaining the cause of delay in preferring the connected criminal appeal. 5. Ms. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that interest of justice will be better subserved if the connected criminal appeal is heard on merits by condoning the period of delay of 22 days which is not significant. 6. Having gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application, we are of the view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 22 days showing sufficient cause. In such view of the matter, the instant interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay of 22 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal stands allowed. 7. Registry to register the connected criminal appeal and thereafter, to list the appeal in the admission column. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant