Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030004262026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/34/2026 Sh. Seikholen Khongsai S/o Hemkhothong Khongsai, Tuining Village, Saikot, Churachandpur District, Manipur VERSUS The State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl2:S.I K.Laldinglian Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jamaiko Singpho Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 15.07.2026 (NELSON SAILO, J) Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant through RVC, who submits that by filing this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of two hundred and eighty seven (287) days in filing the connected criminal Page No.# 2/3 appeal. [2.] Referring to the statements made in the application, more particularly at paragraph No. 2, the learned counsel submits that since the applicant is a resident of State of Manipur and in view of the disturbances prevailing in that State, the applicant could not take immediate necessary steps to file the appeal and therefore, prays that the delay being on account of bona-fide reasons, the same may be condoned. [3.] When the matter came up on 24.06.2026, notice was issued to the respondents including the State respondents and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, had sought time for filing objection to the I.A. However, it is seen that the objection has not been filed till date and the conducting counsel, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, is not available today and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on her behalf submits that as informed to her by Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the applicant has failed to make any day to day explanation in the application seeking condonation of delay and, therefore, there is no proper explanation for the delay. [4.] It may, however, be seen that the criminal appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Page No.# 3/3 Special Judge, ND&PS, Kolasib, Mizoram in Sessions Case (K) No. 35 of 2023 by which the appellant/applicant has been convicted under Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of the ND&PS Act. On being convicted as such, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen (14) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default clause. [5.] Considering the explanations tendered in the application and the fact that the appeal is directed against the conviction of the applicant, we are of the considered view that the opportunity to challenge the conviction order by filing the appeal should not be denied to the applicant. [6.] Accordingly, we condone the delay of two hundred and eighty seven (287) days in filing the connected appeal. [7.] The interlocutory application stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant