Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010117972024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/559/2024 BAHARUL ISLAM S/O IDRISH ALI, R/O VILL- UTTAR KALJHAR, P.S.-HOWLY, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:NAJIMA KHATUN D/O NAZRUL HOQUE R/O VILL- UTTAR KALJHAR P.S.-HOWLY DIST- BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) Linked Case : BAHARUL ISLAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR (H) ------------ Advocate for : MR. N J DUTTA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR (H) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 19.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. J. Baruah, leaned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. and Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No.2. 2. By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 357 in preferring the Criminal Revision for which an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 has been filed - giving rise to the present interlocutory proceeding. 3. The explanation for the delay has been rendered in para 2 and 3 of the application. It is stated that judgment was delivered on 17.03.2023; certified copy was applied on 18.03.2023 and received on 20.03.2025. It is thereafter stated that the petitioner however received the certified copy from his learned advocate on 05.01.2024 due to his ailment and even thereafter, he could not file the petition due to his financial hardship. He is stated to be a daily wage worker unable to bear advocate fees. It is also stated that initially he filed a criminal petition but withdrew the same with liberty to approach this court again and subsequently, this Criminal Revision Petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not agreeable to pay the maintenance to the child as he disputes the paternity. 5. I have also heard Mr. Das, Amicus Curie who supports that the delay Page No.# 3/3 is on higher side and is not backed by sufficient cause to justify its condonation. 6. Upon perusing the case record - I find that a paternity test was conducted which rendered a finding about the petitioner being the biological father of the child and it is observed by the learned court below that the paternity finding is not under challenge. 7. In exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time period spent in pursuing the criminal petition followed by its withdrawal and filing of the instant Criminal Revision - can be condoned. 8. However from 20.03.2023 – when certified copy was ready and 05.01.2024 - when he collected it from his learned counsel - the only explanation is that he was suffering from ailment but no other details have been mentioned nor it is supported by any medical documents. The contention of financial hardship is also only by way of a single statement to that effect. 9. Considering the higher quantum of delay and the insufficient explanation for the same - I do not find sufficient cause to condone the delay and accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this I. A. stands disposed of 11. In view of above, the instant Criminal Revision Petition filing No. 4808/2024 stands automatically falls through. JUDGE Comparing Assistant