Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010012432026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./128/2026 ALI AZGAR KHAN S/O- YAKUB KHAN. R/O- VILL.- KHANDAKARPARA, UNDER P.S.- HOWLY, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY PP, ASSAM 2:KHAIRUL ISLAM S/O- LATE OMAR ALI. R/O- VILL.- KHANDAKARPARA P.S.- HOWLY DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD I H LASKAR, MR. M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 13-03-2026 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this application under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Sections 442 and 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Criminal Misc.(J) Case No.19/2025. 3. By the said order dated 18.12.2025 the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal was not condoned and the same was rejected by the learned Court. 4. Mr. M. Ahmed has placed the order, wherein it has been specifically stated that after the order was passed by the learned Trial Court on 05.06.2025, the petitioner wanted to file an appeal before the Appellate Court, but he suffered an accident due to which he sustained injuries on his left knee and underwent medical treatment and was in a bedridden condition. 5. The medical certificate shows that the petitioner was fit to resume his duties on 31.07.2025. However, the appeal should have been filed on 05.07.2025. The learned Court held that after 31.07.2025, the petitioner should have filed his appeal at best on 05.08.2025, but he filed the appeal on 18.09.2025, without any explanation for the delay of 43 days. It is unknown as to the date fixed by the learned Court that appeal should have been filed on 05.08.2025. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner suffered from left knee injury and he was advised bed rest for 1 month and it cannot be ascertained as to when a person becomes fit to resume his duties, after his bed rest, as it differs from person to person. 6. Since the delay is also not for a very long period and the learned Court has Page No.# 3/3 considered the delay of only 43 days, which has not been explained, this Court finds it too harsh and as such, interferes with the order dated 18.12.2025. Accordingly, the said order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Criminal Misc.(J) Case No.19/2025 is set aside and quashed and the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Barpeta would reconsider the application for condoning the delay in its proper perspective. 7. The criminal revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant