Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010151052026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/740/2026 SIDDHARTH SHARMA S/O LATE SH. OM PRAKASH SHARMA R/O H. NO. 6 PNGB ROAD HILL SIDE SHANTIPUR, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781009 VERSUS STATE (THROUGH CID, ASSAM) GOVT. OF ASSAM CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM GUWAHATI- 65, BARTHAKUR MILL ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781007 Advocate for the Petitioner : A R PAL, Advocate for the Respondent : SPECIAL PP ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 29.07.2026 Heard Mr. A. Dhawan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 10 days in preferring the accompanying Page No.# 2/3 criminal revision petition, against the order dated 02.03.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (trial court hereinafter), in Misc. Case No. 01/2026, filed by the Chief Investigating Officer of SIT, CID Police Station, in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 18/2025. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 02.03.2026, the learned trial court was pleased to allow the prayer of the Investigating Agency seeking attachment of the petitioner’s residential apartment, bearing Flat No. 3A, Orchid Hill View, 0.04 Are, Dag No. 4690, Patta No. 1199, Village Sahar Fatasil, Mouza Beltola, under Fatasil Ambari Police Station. 4. Mr. Dhawan, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that due to the resolution adopted by the Bar Association of Assam not to defend the applicant, certified copy of the order could not be obtained in time and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and the same has sufficiently been explained in paragraph Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of this application and therefore, it is contended to allow this application. 5. Mr. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor, submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the delay of 10 days in preferring the accompanying criminal revision petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the explanation, put forwarded by the applicant in paragraph Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of the application, this Court is of the view that the delay of 10 days in preferring the connected criminal revision petition is sufficiently explained. 7. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this application and accordingly, the delay of 10 days in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition, stands Page No.# 3/3 condoned. 8. Now, the registry shall register the criminal revision petition and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable. 9. In terms of above, this IA stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant