Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010268262025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1388/2025 SRI PARESH KUMAR S/O LATE SURESH KUMAR, R/O VILL. DHARBAM, P.O. KHETRI, PIN 782403, P.S. KHETRI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM. 2:ROBIN BAISHYA (FATHER OF THE VICTIM) S/O LATE SAMIN BAISHYA R/O VILL. DHARBAM P.S. KHETRI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M DAS, J SAIKIA,MS. S DEB Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0 SRI PARESH KUMAR R/O VILL. DHARBAM P.O. KHETRI P.S. KHETRI DIST. KAMRUP (M) Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM PIN 782403 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM. 2:SRI ROBIN BAISHYA VILLAGE DHARBAM P.O. KHETRI P.S. KHETRI ------------ Advocate for : MS M DAS Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 05-01-2026 Heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam. 2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 90 days, which delay is stated to have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the Judgment dated 17.07.2025 and an Order of Sentence dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup [M], Guwahati [‘the Special Court’, for short] in Sessions [Spl] Case no. 230/2023. By the Judgment and Order on Sentence, the Special Court has convicted the applicant under Section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act and Page No.# 3/4 Section 342, IPC. For the offence under Section 10, POCSO Act, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, with default stipulation. For the offence under Section 342, IPC, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. The applicant-appellant has explained in paragraph 4 of the instant application the reasons for delay of 90 days. 4. I have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application, more particularly, paragraph 4 thereof. 5. On having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 90 days showing sufficient cause. Moreover, as the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits leaving aside the technical aspects as regards the delay. 6. The Court is also of the considered view that service of notice upon the opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant can be dispensed with at this stage, as the informant is to be heard after putting the informant on notice in order to hear the accompanying criminal appeal on merits. 7. For the afore-stated reasons, the instant application seeking condonation Page No.# 4/4 of delay of 90 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal is allowed. 8. The Registry to register the criminal appeal and thereafter, to list the appeal for admission. JUDGE Comparing Assistant