Gauhati High Court
Ramjan Ali @ Mohammed Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010110212025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/538/2025
RAMJAN ALI @ MOHAMMED ALI
S/O. LT. IMAN ALI, R/O. VILL.- TITATOLA W/NO. 3, P/S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST.
MORIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:TARA BANU
W/O. HUSSAIN ALI
R/O. VILL. TITATOLA W/NO. 3
P/S. LAHARIGHAT
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N SULTANA, Q. KIBA,MS. S K NARGIS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0
MD RAMJAN ALI ALIAS MOHAMMED ALI
W/O- HUSSAIN ALI
R/O- VILLAGE TITATOLA W/NO 3 P.S LAHARLGHAT
DISTRICT MORIGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM ORS
REP BY THE PP
ASSAM
2:Tara Banu
W/O- HUSSAIN ALI
R/O- VILLAGE TITATOLA W/NO 3 P.S LAHARLGHAT
DISTRICT MORIGAON
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : NAZMIN SULTANA
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 28.05.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. A.
Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of
Assam.
2. The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
preferred seeking condonation of delay of two days in preferring the connected criminal
appeal from jail. The connected criminal appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and
Order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge - cum -
Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon ['the trial court', for short] in POCSO Case no. 232/2023. By
the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2024, the learned trial court has convicted the
Page No.# 3/4
applicant-appellant under Section 376AB and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. In view of Section 42, POCSO Act, the applicant-
appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years and to
pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for another six months under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant
interlocutory application.
4. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that since the
applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty]
years, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on
merits after effecting service of notice on the opposite party-respondent no. 2.
5. On having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, we
are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of
delay of two days showing sufficient cause.
6. We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been
convicted both under Section 376AB and under Section 6, POCSO Act and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act,
interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits
expeditiously after condoning the period of delay of two days. The issuance of notice to the
opposite party-respondent no. 2 is dispensed with at this stage as at the stage of hearing the
connected criminal appeal, service of notice upon the opposite party-respondent no. 2 is to
be ensured and the opposite party-respondent no. 2 would be heard, if the opposite party-
respondent no. 2 enters appearance after service of notice.
7. For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of
two days in preferring the connected appeal.
Page No.# 4/4
8. The Registry to register the connected appeal and thereafter, list the same in the
admission column.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
