Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010131482025 2025:GAU-AS:8595-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/681/2025 SUNIL PROJA S/O. SANJAY PROJA, R/O. VILL.- RAJGARH T.E. LINE NO. 09, P/S. BORDUBI, DIST. TINSUKIA, PIN-786151, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:GEETANJALI KARMAKAR W/O. SRI MEGHU KARMAKAR R/O. VILL.- RAJGARH T.E. LINE NO. 9 P/S. BORDUBI TINSUKIA PIN-786151 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N HASSAN, FOR LEGAL AID Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 25.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J] Page No.# 2/3 Heard Ms. N. Hasan, learned Amicus Curiae for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party-respondent no. 1. 2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 152 days, which have occurred in preferring the accompanying Criminal Appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 against a Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge [POCSO], Tinsukia in POCSO Case no. 25/2024. 3. By the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2024, the applicant-appellant has been found guilty of the offence under Section 4[2] of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 as well as under Section 376[3] of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. In view of Section 4[2], POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of 10,000/-, with default stipulation. 4. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application, more particularly, Paragraph 5 & 6 thereof. 5. Having regard to the statements and averments made in this interlocutory application, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 152 days showing sufficient cause. Moreover, since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, we are also of the considered view that interest of justice will be subserved, leaving aside the technical consideration, if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay. 6. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that in the interest of justice, the accompanying criminal appeal can be heard on merits in view of the sentence imposed upon the applicant-appellant after ensuring service of notice upon the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant. Page No.# 3/3 7. The opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant will have a right of audience when the accompanying criminal appeal is to be heard on merits. For that purpose, it would be ensured that the notice would be served upon the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant before the hearing. But at this stage, the instant interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay can be considered dispensing with the notice to the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant. 8. In view of the reasons recorded above, the instant interlocutory application is allowed condoning the delay of 152 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. 9. The Registry to register the accompanying criminal appeal and thereafter, to list the appeal for admission. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant