Gauhati High Court
IA(Crl)/29/2026 of Aya Hinam Self Help Group Vs Bipu Tali and Anr on 1 September 2026
GAHC040006222026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/29/2026 Aya Hinam Self Help Group represented by its Treasurer Shri Komli Lollen, Son of Late Minkom Lollen, resident of Gumin Nagar, PO and PS Aalo, West
GAHC040006222026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(Crl)/29/2026
Aya Hinam Self Help Group
represented by its Treasurer Shri Komli Lollen, Son of Late Minkom Lollen, resident of Gumin Nagar, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
Bipu Tali and Anr
Son of Late Tobi Tali, resident of Gemo Tali Village, PO and PS Kamba, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh 791001 2:Rekar Tato Age: 0
Occupation :
Son of Shri Lore Tato
resident of Yaki Tato Village
PO and PS Kamba
West Siang District
Arunachal Pradesh 79110
Advocate for the Petitioner : Dicky Panging, Sr. Adv, Advocate for the Respondent : Tsering Gyatso, Tayom Gamoh,Techi Topu,Jambey Tsering Kee,Phurpa Tsering,Logsang Yountan,Dejum Tally
Page 1 of 2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
ORDER
02.09.2026 Heard Mr. C. Tajo, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. L. Yountan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay of 46 days in preferring the connected criminal revision petition against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, whereby an appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the judgment of conviction dated 18.08.2023 and sentence order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo in C.R. Case No. 24/2018 were set aside.
3. Mr. Tajo, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the grounds for the delay in filing the connected appeal have been explained in paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of the delay condonation petition.
4. Considering the explanations provided in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the revision petition within the stipulated time. The learned counsel for the respondents raised no objection to the condonation of delay.
5. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, the interlocutory application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 46 days in preferring the connected revision petition stands condoned.
6. The Registry is directed to register the connected criminal revision petition and list the same for admission hearing after 2(two) weeks.
7. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of in terms above.
JUDGE
Sabnam Mepo (SPA)
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…