Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3387 (GAU)

AFJALUR RAHMAN @ ABZALUR RAHMAN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

I.A.(Crl.)/1355/2025 · 2026-02-12

Shamima Jahan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010277632025 2026:GAU-AS:2078 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1355/2025 AFJALUR RAHMAN @ ABZALUR RAHMAN S/O LATE BARKAT ALI R/O NAGATILLA, SONAI ROAD, SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- FULPUR, P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, S NAZNIN,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : CROP(C)/0/0 AFJALUR RAHMAN ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 ------------ Advocate for : IMRAN UDDIN CHOWDHURY Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 13.02.2026 Heard Mr. I.U. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 31 days in filing the connected criminal revision petition. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed the grounds for condoning of the delay of the said 31 days as mentioned in paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the said application, wherein it was written as there was a decision to challenge the Order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Sessions/Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 121/2024, by which application under Section 311 of the Cr.PC for recalling material prosecution witness was rejected. However, it is stated that at the said juncture when the order of rejection was passed, the petitioner did not challenge it. However, with the progress of the trial, the petitioner realized that the impugned order requires to be challenged for the ends of justice and the said exercise led to a delay of 31 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. This Court finds the grounds narrated in the said application genuine and Page No.# 3/3 in view of the same, finds it fit to condone the delay of 31 days in filing the instant criminal revision petition. Accordingly, the delay of 31 days is condoned. I.A is accordingly disposed of. Registry to register the connected Criminal Revision Petition and list it for admission hearing. JUDGE Comparing Assistant