Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4399 (GAU)

Vijay Borah v. THE STATE OF AP and Anr.

IA(Crl)/27/2023 · 2025-05-13

Budi Habung, Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040004582023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/27/2023 Vijay Borah S/o Shri Biren Borah, R/o Vill Simulguri, PO/PS Bihpuria, District Lakhimpur, Assam Presently lodging at District Jail Jully Itanagar. VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and Anr. Represented by the Public Prosecutor. 2:Hura Tanam Age: 0 Occupation : D/o Late Hura Tashi Permanent Resident of Village Palin PO/PS Sangram District Kurung Kumey Arunachal Pradesh. Present Address C/o Smti Nabam Ruby W/o Shri Nabam Haching R/o C Sector Nirjuli PO Naharlagun PS Nirjuli District Papumpare Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Jumgam Jini, Amicus Curiae Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Legal Aid Counsel,Hinti Jeram Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 14-05-2025 (S.K.Medhi, J) Heard Shri J. Jini, learned Amicus Curiae for the applicant, who has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1027 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal. Notice was issued on 19.04.2023, pursuant to which the respondents have entered appearance. Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. H. Jeram, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No. 2 have fairly submitted that since the appeal has been preferred from jail against an order of conviction, they would not have serious objection in the aspect of condonation of delay and would rather oppose the appeal on its merit. It is a settled principle of law that while adjudicating an application for condonation of delay, a pragmatic and justice originated approach is required to be taken. We have also perused the averments made in paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 of the application, whereby, the delay has been sought to be explained. Upon perusal of the same and on considering the nature of the appeal, we are of the opinion that the delay in preferring the appeal is liable to be condoned, which we accordingly do. Page No.# 3/3 The interlocutory application, accordingly, stands allowed. Let the appeal be registered and listed for Admission. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant