Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010056142025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/263/2025 MOFIZUR RAHMAN @ SUJAN S/O. LT. NOORUDDIN, R/O. BAMUNGAON, P/O. UDALI BAZAR, P/S. LANKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782446.HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:IMRAN HUSSAIN S/O. LT. YUSUF ALI R/O. VILL. RANGALO SUTAR GAON P/S. JUMUMUR DIST. NAGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C CHAKRAVARTY, MR D DAS,MR B P SARMAH,B SAHA,MR B P SARMAH,MR. R HAZARIKA,MR. S SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0 MD MOFIZUR RAHMAN ALIAS SUJAN HOJAI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 REP BY PP ASSAM 2:IMRAN HUSSAIN NAGAON ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : CHINMOY CHAKRAVARTY Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Linked Case : EC/0/0 MD MOFIZUR RAHMAN ALIAS SUJAN HOJAI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM 2:IMRAN HUSSAIN NAGAON ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : CHINMOY CHAKRAVARTY Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 04.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No. 1. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant, Md. Mofizur Rahman @ Sujan praying for condonation of Page No.# 3/4 delay of 32 days in preferring the connected appeal whereby he intends to produce the judgment and order dated 22.11.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hojai in Sessions (1) 18 (H) of 2021 whereby the present applicant was convicted under Section 326/ 333/ 149/ 143/ 147/ 148/ 447 of IPC alongwith with Section 3(2) of the PDPP Act, read with Section 4 of the Assam Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violance and Damage to property) Act, 2011. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was prevented due to reasons mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application for condonation of delay in preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. He submits that the reasons shown by the applicant may be considered as sufficient reasons under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor considering the reasons shown by the applicant in the application for condonation of delay for consideration has not opposed the prayer for condoning the delay. 5. `I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. As the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has conceded to the prayer for condoning the delay made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the ground shown by the applicant in the condonation application, which prevented in approaching this court within the prescribed period of time is found to be sufficient by this court, the delay of 32 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 7. This interlocutory application is disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 8. The Registry to register the connected criminal appeal and list this case for admission on the date to be fixed by the Registry. 9. The I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant