Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030007422025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/50/2025 Smt. Lalhmingsangi W/o Laltlanzauva, Thingsai Pemveng, Hnahthial District VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. and 2 Ors. Aizawl2:The Superintendent of Police Hnahthial District 3:The Investigating Officer Hnahthial Police Statio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram Linked Case : Crl.A./29/2025 Smt. Lalhmingsangi W/o Laltlanzauva Thingsai Pemveng Hnahthial District VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b The Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram Home Dept. and 2 Ors. Page No.# 2/5 Aizawl 2:The Superintendent of Police Hnahthial District Hnahthial 3:The Investigating Officer Hnahthial Police Station Hnahthial Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 28.11.2025 Heard Ms. Rosy Manlawmsangi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents. 2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 624 days in filing the connected criminal appeal against the judgment & order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Court of ND&PS Act, Lunglei District, Mizoram, in Crl. Tr. No. 58/2021, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 21(b) and 22(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985, and was sentenced under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 months. Page No.# 3/5 3. The case of the applicant is that since the applicant was in custody and was in financial difficulty despite her best efforts to convince her family and her friends to engage a counsel, she was unable to convince them, and ultimately she could only contact the present counsel sometime towards the end of August 2025, and thereafter the present appeal was filed. However, the delay of 624 days occurred. 4. Ms. Rosy Manlawmsangi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that delay is not deliberate and intentional and the same has occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the applicant and hence the delay sought be condoned. 5. Per contra, Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondents, submits that there is no day to day explanation of the delay and hence the delay of 624 days be not condoned. 6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the material available on record. 7. Apt to refer to the grounds of delay averred in the condonation application which reads as under: “4. That the primary reason for the delay is that, following her conviction, the Applicant had informed her relatives to take necessary steps on her behalf to prefer an appeal against the said impugned Judgment and Order. However, despite repeated request made by the Applicant, her family members failed to take any active step to initiate the appeal process. 5. That, since her relatives did not take any active step to initiate Page No.# 4/5 the appeal, and as the Applicant had no financial means or ability to arrange funds while in custody, she was rendered helpless and deeply distressed. In such circumstances, the Applicant took the initiative to contact her friends outside the prison seeking assistance. However, despite successfully establishing contact, none of her friends provided the necessary support or made any effort to file the appeal on her behalf. 6. That it was extremely difficult for the Applicant to take any active steps from prison, the situation became even more difficult, particularly given her lack of financial means or ability to arrange funds while in custody. 7. That, having no other alternative, and when the applicant had nearly lost all hope of receiving any assistance for filing the appeal, she came to know about her present counsels through her fellow inmates. Upon learning about them, the applicant immediately contacted the present counsels sometime towards the end of August 2025. Thereafter, the present counsel got in touch with a counsel from Lunglei and subsequently they proceeded to Lunglei to apply for certified copies of the case records on Dt.28.08.2025. The certified copies were prepared and supplied only on Dt.25.09.2025. 8. That thereafter, the present counsels took some time to study the matter and to draft the memorandum of appeal. Consequently, the Applicant's counsels were able to file the connected appeal only on Dt.21.10.2025. As a result, there has been a total delay of 624 days in filing the said appeal.” 8. Reading the aforesaid grounds, it appears that due to the applicant being in custody and unable to convince her family and her friends to engage legal counsel for filing an appeal against the conviction and also due to her family conditions, the delay of 624 days occurred. The aforesaid grounds appear to be sufficient and bona fide. Accordingly, the delay of 624 days stands condoned. Page No.# 5/5 9. The interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant