Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010172142026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/856/2026 SHRI MANISH AGARWALLA S/O LATE KANHAYA LAL AGARWALLA R/O NAZIRA STATION TINALI, WARD NO 10, P.O.AND P.S. NAZIRA, DISTRICT SIVASAGAR ASSAM, PIN 785685 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMT MALAMONI AGARWALLA W/O SHRI MANISH AGARWALLA R/O NAZIRA STATION TINALI WARD NO 10 P.O. P.S. NAZIRA DISTRICT SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN 78568 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P D NAIR, DR. S R A NASER,MR. H ROHMAN,MR G ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.Rev.P./7284/2026 SHRI MANISH AGARWALLA S/O LATE KANHAYA LAL AGARWALLAR/O NAZIRA STATION TINALI WARD NO 10P.O. P.S. NAZIRADISTRICT SIVASAGAR ASSAMPIN 78785685 Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:SMT MALAMONI AGARWALLA W/O SHRI MANISH AGARWALLAR/O NAZIRA STATION TINALI WARD NO 10P.O. P.S. NAZIRADISTRICT SIVASAGAR ASSAMPIN 78785685 ------------ Advocate for : Dr SYED RIZWAN AHMED NASER Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 21.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Chetry, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State 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 286 days in preferring the connected Criminal Revision Petition. 3. By the said Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner has intended to challenge the Judgment and order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Sivasagar in Criminal Appeal No. 01(1)/2025. By the said Judgment and order, the Judgement passed by the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Nazira in PRC Case No. 230/2021, convicting the petitioner under Section 498 A and was sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and with default stipulation, was upheld by the appellate Court. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has relied upon the Page No.# 3/3 pleadings made in paragraph 4, wherein it was stated that the applicant was addicted to alcohol and he stayed in the Rehabilitation Centre for long and he could not contact any counsel for filing the criminal appeal in time. 5. It was also stated that when the applicant had some improvement in his physical condition, he met his counsel and the counsel on the request made, applied for the certified copy and on receipt of the same prepared the criminal appeal. 6. It was also stated that the signature of the applicant could not be taken due to the fact that the applicant could not come to Guwahati. It be stated here that the applicant was on previous bail. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire process as such caused some delay in filing the criminal appeal. 8. This Court is satisfied with the reasons given in the Interlocutory Application and finds it fit to condone the delay of 286 days, which however, was recalculated and found to be 259 days, in preferring the connected appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. 9. The Registry is directed to register the criminal revision petition and list it for admission. 10. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant