Page No. 1/3 GAHC010124902025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/668/2025 PRASANTA BORA SON OF BUBUL BORA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE 2 NO MORAJAN, P/S. SARUPATHAR, DIST.GOLAGHAT, PIN-785601 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JITU SAIKIA SON OF SRI LATE BIPIN SAIKIA RESIDENT OF NO 2 MORAJAN NAOJAN P/S. SARUPATHAR DIST. GOLAGHAT PIN-785601 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. S KHATANIAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 224.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.] Heard Ms. S. Khataniar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam. Page No. 2/3 2. The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of twenty days, which have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal [Jail] no. 5326/2025 [Filing Number] under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 to assail a Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case no. 25/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2025, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months. 3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application. 4. 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 explain the period of delay showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay of twenty days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. 5. We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, interest of justice will be better sub- served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay. 6. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, 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. 7. Resultantly, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay twenty days in preferring the connected appeal. Page No. 3/3 8. The Registry to register the accompanying appeal and thereafter, to list the same in the admission column. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant