Gauhati High Court
Loknath Rajbongshi vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 7 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010178052024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/832/2024
LOKNATH RAJBONGSHI
S/O LATE BORIHANA RAJBONGSHI
VILL-3 NO. HAZALPARA
P.S. GORESWAR
DIST. TAMULPUR BTR, ASSAM
PIN-781366
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PP, ASSAM
2:SRI NIRU SAHARIYA
W/O SRI ANIL SAHARIYA
VILL- 3 NO. HAZALPARA
P.S. GORESWAR
DIST. TAMULPUR
BTR
ASSAM
PIN-78136
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD M S ALI, MR. K BASUMATARY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. S SHARMA (R-2),MR. B SHARMA (R-2),MR. D
DAS (R-2)
Linked Case :
Page No.# 2/4
LOKNATH RAJBONGSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR (F)
------------
Advocate for : MD M S ALI
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR (F)
Linked Case :
LOKNATH RAJBONGSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
------------
Advocate for : MD M S ALI
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 07.02.2025
1. Heard Mr. M. S. Ali, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard
Ms. M. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as
well as Mr. D Das, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2.
2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been
Page No.# 3/4
filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 50 days in preferring the
connected Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.02/2022 by the Court of learned Session Judge,
Baksa, whereby the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the present
petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, on 20.12.2021, in G.R. Case
No. 37/2018, was upheld.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after
pronouncement of the impugned judgment, the petitioner had to remain busy
with the treatment of his ailing wife, who is suffering from various ailments, and
he also could not find a lawyer for preferring the revision petition against the
impugned order.
4. He submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars
since 10.07.2024 and he has a fair chance of succeeding in the connected
revision petition. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for condoning the delay.
5. Though, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, considering the
reasons for the delay mentioned in the delay condonation application, has
conceded to the prayer.
6. However, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has objected
to the prayer on the ground that the ground of not finding a lawyer for filing
criminal cases is not a valid ground as the legal services of the District Legal
Services Authority could have been availed by the petitioner as he was entitled
to same as he was detained behind the bars.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondent.
8. Though, the point raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent
No. 2 is a valid point, the petitioner could have availed the assistance of a Legal
Page No.# 4/4
Aid Counsel provided by the District Legal Services Authority.
9. However, considering the other grounds mentioned in the application
for condonation of delay as well as considering the fact that the petitioner is
presently detained behind the bars, this Court is of opinion that the delay of 80
days in preferring the connected criminal revision has been sufficiently
explained.
10. This interlocutory application is accordingly allowed.
11. Let the connected revision petition be registered and be listed for
admission in the next week on a date to be fixed by the Registry.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
