Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040001932025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/16/2025 Tagu Takar Son of Shri Tagu Tania, at Jully Jail, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Gollo Taje Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Gollo Kaya Tarajuli Village PO and PS Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Khyoda Yayo, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/3 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA 12.03.2025 (N. Sailo, J) Heard Ms. R Taku, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. L Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. Office Note dated 03.03.2025 indicates that notice has been served upon the respondent No. 2, who is the complainant. Considering the same, notice is accepted to be complete on respondent No. 2. [2.] By filing this application, the applicant prays for condonation of 2430 days in filing the connected appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 23.06.2016 by which, he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to go R.I for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause. [3.] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that 3 (three) Legal Aid Counsels were appointed to assist the applicant in filing an appeal before this Court but none of the Legal Aid Counsels have filed an appeal. Therefore, it is only when the applicant was on parole for 20 days that he could engage the present counsel. The counsel for the applicant submits that ever since the arrest of the applicant, he has never been released on bail, except for 20 days of Page No.# 3/3 parole that was granted to him. She submits that under the circumstance, the delay of 2430 days which has occasioned may be condoned for ends of justice. [4.] Ms. L Hage, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that since the respondent No. 2 has not appeared today, some more opportunity may be granted to the respondent No. 2 to object the application as the conviction is under Section 302 IPC. However, considering the fact that applicant has been incarcerated since the very day of his arrest, we are inclined to accept the explanation tendered in the application and accordingly, the delay of 2430 days in filing the connected appeal is condoned. [5.] I.A stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant