Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010118272025 2025:GAU-AS:7787-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/618/2025 NIRANJAN DAS SON OF LATE RAJEN DAS, RESIDENT OF PURANI BONGAIGAON, P/S AND DISTRICT.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE, PP ASSAM 2:DHANJIT CHOUDHURY SON OF BASANTA KR CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF BARPARA WARD NO 20 P/S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA, FOR LEGAL AID Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 13.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J] Page No.# 2/3 Heard Ms. B.R.A. Sultana, learned Amicus Curiae for the applicant-appellant and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party 1-respondent State. 2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 130 days, which have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The accompanying criminal appeal is preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon in Special [POCSO] Case no. 96[BGN]/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2024, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code [IPC] r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Under Section 363, IPC the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation; and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the applicant- appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application. 4. Ms. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits by condoning the delay in preferring the accompanying appeal, after effecting service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2- informant. 5. Having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 130 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. 6. We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been Page No.# 3/3 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay. 7. The instant application is allowed condoning the delay 130 days in preferring the connected appeal. 8. Issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2-informant is dispensed with at this stage as the opposite party no. 2-informant will be heard when the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits, after ensuring service of notice., if the opposite party no. 2-informant chooses to appear. 9. The Registry to register the accompanying appeal and thereafter, to list the same in the admission column. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant