[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sri Paresh Kumar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 5 January, 2026
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010268262025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1388/2025
SRI PARESH KUMAR
S/O LATE SURESH KUMAR, R/O VILL. DHARBAM, P.O. KHETRI, PIN 782403,
P.S. KHETRI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM.
2:ROBIN BAISHYA
(FATHER OF THE VICTIM)
S/O LATE SAMIN BAISHYA
R/O VILL. DHARBAM
P.S. KHETRI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M DAS, J SAIKIA,MS. S DEB
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0
SRI PARESH KUMAR
R/O VILL. DHARBAM
P.O. KHETRI
P.S. KHETRI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM
PIN 782403
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM.
2:SRI ROBIN BAISHYA
VILLAGE
DHARBAM P.O. KHETRI P.S. KHETRI
------------
Advocate for : MS M DAS
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 05-01-2026
Heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.P.
Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1,
State of Assam.
2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
preferred seeking condonation of delay of 90 days, which delay is stated to have
occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the Judgment dated
17.07.2025 and an Order of Sentence dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup [M], Guwahati
['the Special Court', for short] in Sessions [Spl] Case no. 230/2023. By the
Judgment and Order on Sentence, the Special Court has convicted the applicant
under Section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act and
Page No.# 3/4
Section 342, IPC. For the offence under Section 10, POCSO Act, the applicant
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 50,000/-, with default stipulation. For the offence under Section 342,
IPC, the applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6
months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. The applicant-appellant has explained in paragraph 4 of the instant
application the reasons for delay of 90 days.
4. I have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant
application, more particularly, paragraph 4 thereof.
5. On having gone through the statements and averments made in this
application, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has
been able to explain the period of delay of 90 days showing sufficient cause.
Moreover, as the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years, interest of justice would be better sub-served if the
accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits leaving aside the technical
aspects as regards the delay.
6. The Court is also of the considered view that service of notice upon the
opposite party-respondent no. 2/informant can be dispensed with at this stage,
as the informant is to be heard after putting the informant on notice in order to
hear the accompanying criminal appeal on merits.
7. For the afore-stated reasons, the instant application seeking condonation
Page No.# 4/4
of delay of 90 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal is allowed.
8. The Registry to register the criminal appeal and thereafter, to list the
appeal for admission.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
