Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010116912026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/598/2026 MUKUNDA MANKI S/O RAMA MANKI,R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 KACHUBIL,P.O. P.S. KALAIGAON,DISTRICT UDALGURI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:JASMINE BARO (INFORMANT) D/O LATE GANESH BARO R/O VILLAGE HATIBANDHA P.O. P.S. KALAIGAON DISTRICT UDALGURI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K SARMA, MS M BORAH,MS. K BORUAH,MS. M SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 05.08.2026 Heard Mr. M.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. B. Page No.# 2/3 Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the respondent/opposite party No.1. None appears for the respondent/opposite party No.2. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 197 days in preferring the connected criminal revision petition against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udalguri, in Criminal Appeal No.21/2024, whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the learned Trial Court and also affirmed the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.21/2024, was passed on 22.08.2025, and the applicant herein could not contact his counsel in time and his parents were also suffering from diseases and he has the burden to look after them and also due to ignorance, the applicant could not approach this Court in time and the delay is explained in paragraph Nos.5—7 in the additional affidavit and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and therefore, he has contended to condone the same. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional P.P., however, has opposed the application on the ground that the ground assigned is not sufficient for condonation of delay of 197 days in preferring the connected criminal revision petition. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also perused the additional affidavit filed by the applicant. In view of the explanation, so put forwarded in paragraph Nos.5—7 of the additional affidavit and also considering the submission of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the view that the delay is sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. In terms of above, the I.A. stands disposed of. Now the Registry will register and number the connected criminal revision petition Page No.# 3/3 and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE