Smt. Tamanna Chakma v. Central Bureau of Investigation represented by Dy. Inspector General of Police, CBI, ACB
I.A.(Crl.)/15/2026 · 2026-03-16
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Criminal Appealbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 154 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 154 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030001322026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/15/2026 Smt. Tamanna Chakma D/o Sushil Kumar Chakma, Kamalanagar-I, Lawngtlai District
VERSUS Central Bureau of Investigation represented by Dy. Inspector General of Police, CBI, ACB Guwahati
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Zairemsangpuii, CGC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 17.03.2026
Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 596 days in filing the connected criminal appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the CBI has sought time to file objection.
Page No.# 2/3
4. It appears that by Order dated 09.03.2026, time was granted as sought for to CBI to file objection.
5. The applicant/appellant therein was convicted under Section 420/468/471 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) and Section 13(1),(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine for Rs. 3,00,000/-, in default, further imprisonment for 9 months.
6. The applicant/appellant was arrested on strength of non-bailable warrant of arrest (NWA) on 17.01.2026 and since then she has been in custody.
7. Having regard to the nature of the case and the aforesaid detention of the applicant/appellant since 59 days, I am not inclined to grant further time to the respondent to file objection.
8. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant on the reasons for the delay which are already reflected in paragraph No. 3 of the instant IA. Also heard learned CBI on the same.
9. Having regard to the averments made supported by an affidavit, I am of the view that the applicant/appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from approaching the Court within the period of limitation. Hence, the delay of 596 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned. The IA stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant