Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010167222026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/853/2026 KARAN ORANG SON OF BIRJU ORANG, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO.2, LOKAMPUR, P.S MAZBAT, DISTRICT UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM - 784507. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ATREYA, MS. C KALITA,MR. J KONWAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./7052/2026 KARAN ORANG SON OF BIRJU ORANG RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO.2 LOKAMPUR P.S MAZBAT DISTRICT UDALGURI BTR ASSAM - 784507. Page No.# 2/4 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : ANUBHAB ATREYA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/7054/2026 KARAN ORANG SON OF BIRJU ORANG RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO.2 LOKAMPUR P.S MAZBAT DISTRICT UDALGURI BTR ASSAM - 784507. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : ANUBHAB ATREYA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 21.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Atreya, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Page No.# 3/4 of Assam. 2. By this interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 90 days in preferring a criminal appeal challenging the order of conviction dated 27.02.2026 and the order of sentence dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, Assam in Sessions (T-I) Case No. 26/2024. 3. Mr. Atreya, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has referred to paragraph 7 and 8 of the present Interlocutory Application, wherein it was stated that the applicant being economically weak and without any resources to pursue his appeal, could not file the appeal on time. 4. It is also reflected that initially the applicant tried to file the appeal through the Legal Aid counsel, but then he lost his contact with the family members to pursue filing of the appeal. Thereafter, it is further stated that the applicant had tried to again file the appeal through an organization, which had taken up the cause of the applicant and through its efforts the applicant could contact the present counsel for filing the appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant stated that thereafter the copies of the Judgment were taken out and the appeal was prepared and the same caused a delay of 90 days in preferring the same. 5. This Court is satisfied with the reasons given in the said interlocutory application and also on the ground that the learned Additional P.P. had not objected for condoning the said delay, this Court finds it fit to condone the delay of 90 days in preferring the criminal appeal. 6. The registry is directed to register the criminal appeal and list it for admission. Page No.# 4/4 7. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant