Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5193 (GAU)

SAGAR DARJI @ SAGAR DORJI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

I.A.(Crl.)/397/2025 · 2026-04-26

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010064532025 2026:GAU-AS:5736 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/397/2025 SAGAR DARJI @ SAGAR DORJI S/O. BIR BAHADUR DORJI, R/O BORGOLAI JAMADAR BASTI, P.S. MARGHERITA, DISTRICT -TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:NASIR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE ABDUL HAFIZ R/O BORGOLAI JAMADAR BASTI P.S. MARGHERITA DISTRICT - TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 78618 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GOGOI, MS B R A SULTANA (LEGAL AID COUNSEL),FOR LEGAL AID Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, DR. P AGARWAL, AMICUS CURIAE Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0 SRI SAGAR DARJI ALIAS SAGAR DORJI SO BAHADUR DORJI R/O BORGOLAI JAMADAR BASTI P.S. MARGHERITA Page No.# 2/3 DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM PP ASSAM 2:MD NASIR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE ABDUL HAFIZ R/O BORGOLAI JAMADAR BASTI P.S. MARGHERITA DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786181 ------------ Advocate for : AMARENDRA GOGOI Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Linked Case : EC/0/0 SRI SAGAR DARJI ALIAS SAGAR DORJI SO BAHADUR DORJI R/O BORGOLAI JAMADAR BASTI P.S. MARGHERITA DISTRICT - TINSUKIA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM PP ASSAM 2:MD NASIR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE ABDUL HAFIZ R/O BORGOLAI JAMADAR BASTI P.S. MARGHERITA DISTRICT - TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN 786181 ------------ Advocate for : AMARENDRA GOGOI Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 27.04.2026 1. Learned counsel, Ms. B.R.A Sultana, is present for the applicant and learned counsel, Dr. P. Agarwal is present for the respondent no.2. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, with prayer for condonation of delay of 14 days. 3. No objection has been raised from the respondents’ side. No malafide is also discernible. 4. Sufficient grounds have been shown as the appellant was behind bars. Thereby, delay of 14 days is condoned. 5. The Registry is directed to register the connected appeal. 6. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant