Gauhati High Court
IA(Crl)/80/2026 of Chitiso Chakma Vs The State of AP on 17 August 2026
GAHC040013572026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/80/2026 Chitiso Chakma Son of Late Anguni Chakma, resident of Uranyapur, PS Diyun, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 792103 VERSUS The State of AP
Page No.# 1/
GAHC040013572026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(Crl)/80/2026
Chitiso Chakma
Son of Late Anguni Chakma, resident of Uranyapur, PS Diyun, Changlang District, Arunachal Pradesh. 792103
VERSUS
The State of AP
represented by the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Geken Jini, Legal Aid Counsel Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,
Page No.# 2/
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
18.08.2026 [Budi Habung, J] Heard Mr. G. Jini, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1703 days in preferring the connected appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Khonsa in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 05/2021.
3. Having considered the explanations provided in the application, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the appeal within the limitation period. Moreover, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent has also raised no objection to the prayer made by the applicant, as the connected appeal is preferred from jail.
4. 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 1703 days in preferring the connected appeal stands condoned.
5. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of in terms above.
JUDGE JUDGE
Sabnam Mepo (SPA)