Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010033252026 2026:GAU-AS:3700- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/176/2026 DR ARUN KUMAR BORAH SON OF LATE PRAFULLA CHANDRA BORAH RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 21 CHENIKUTHI HILL SIDE KUSHAL KONWAR ROAD GUWAHATI SILPUKHURI PIN- 781003 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI 2:SRI JULHAS ALI ALIAS RAJU ALI SON OF NURUL ISLAM RESIDENT OFJONIA BAZAR P.S. DIST- BORPETA PIN 786610 ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. P P BORTHAKUR Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 13-03-2026 (A.D. Choudhury, J) 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant seeking condonation of the delay of 34 days in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 300/2010. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Kamrup (M) under its judgment dated 05.08.2025 acquitted the accused/respondent No.2 herein. 3. In paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 of this application, the applicant has cited the reasons for delay in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal. 4. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that she has no instruction to object to the present application. 5. The length of the delay is indeed a relevant factor to be considered when deciding an application for condonation of delay. However, when sufficient causes are shown, the discretion vested in the Courts to condone delay is to be exercised, though sufficient cause shall not mean a mere explanation given superficially. 6. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicant has sufficiently explained the reasons of delay and has been able to substantiate that due to his lower lumber pain, he was prevented from approaching the Court promptly Page No.# 3/3 and within the prescribed period of limitation. We do not see any negligence, lack of bona-fide or inaction on the part of the applicants. 7. Based on the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the applicant was not diligent or that the delay was intentional. 8. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by the applicant, this Court is satisfied that the delay occasioned in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal was neither deliberate nor actuated by negligence but resulted from bona-fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. In the absence of gross latches or mala-fide intention attributable to the applicant, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits. 9. In the given facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondents by such delay. 10. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay of 34 days, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. 11. The instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed off. 12. The Registry to process the connected appeal and, if the same is found defect free, shall list the same under the appropriate heading, preferably on 26.03.2026. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant