Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010097342025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/504/2025 BADRI YADAV SON OF LATE MAHADEO YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAKUM, CHANDMARI, P/S. MAKUM, DIST. TINSUKIA, PIN-786170 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:DEVRAJ SHARMA SON OF SRI JOYNATH SHARMA RESIDENT OF MAKUM CHANDMARI GAON P/S. MAKUM DIST. TINSUKIA PIN-786170 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. S KHATANIAR, FOR LEGAL AID Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 28-01-2026 Heard Ms. S. Khataniar, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. Page No.# 2/3 1, State of Assam. 2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 85 days, which period of delay is stated to have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415[2] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Tinsukia, in POCSO Case no. 131/2022, arising out of Makum Police Station Case no. 70/2022. By the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2024, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further four months. 3. The applicant-appellant has explained in paragraph 2 of the instant application the reasons for delay of 85 days. 4. I have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application, more particularly, paragraph 2 thereof. 5. On having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 85 days showing sufficient cause. Moreover, as the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits leaving aside the technical Page No.# 3/3 aspects as regards the delay. 6. The Court is also of the considered view that service of notice upon the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant can be dispensed with at this stage, as the accompanying criminal appeal is to be heard only after ensuring service of notice upon the informant. 7. For the afore-stated reasons, the instant application seeking condonation of delay of 85 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal is allowed. 8. The Registry to register the criminal appeal and thereafter, to list the appeal for admission. JUDGE Comparing Assistant