Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010194182025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/954/2025 RABINDRA BISWAS S/O. SRI SARASWATI BISWAS, R/O. VILL.- MATABARI, P/O. CHENGA, P/S. TARABARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:MONEKA SARKAR W/O. MITHUN SARKAR VILL.- BATGAON P/S. TARABARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. N CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. N Choudhury, learned legal-aid-counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State of Assam. 2. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has Page No.# 2/3 been filed by the petitioner, namely, Rabindra Biswas who is serving out his sentence imposed on him by the judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 151/2024 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 326 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The petitioner has impugned the aforesaid judgment by preferring the connected criminal appeal and there is a delay of 50 days in preferring the said appeal. 4. The learned legal-aid-counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cause of delay in preferring the connected criminal appeal has been stated in paragraph No. 8 of the condonation of delay application. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, considering the grounds stated in the condonation of delay application as well as considering the fact that the applicant is defended in this case by legal-aid-counsel, does not raise any objection against the prayer for condoning the delay. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides as well as the grounds stated in paragraph No. 8 whereby the petitioner has stated the cause for approaching this Court by preferring the connected criminal petition belatedly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds shown are Page No.# 3/3 sufficient, which prevented the petitioner to approach this Court within the prescribed period of limitation for filing the connected criminal appeal. The said delay of 50 days is, therefore, condoned. 8. The Registry is directed to register the connected criminal appeal and list the same for admission. 9. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant