Gauhati High Court
IA(Crl)/73/2026 of Tado Flago Vs The State of AP on 22 July 2026
GAHC040011042026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/73/2026 Tado Flago Son of Late Gyadung Flago, resident of Flago Village, PO Pipu, PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC040011042026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(Crl)/73/2026
Tado Flago
Son of Late Gyadung Flago, resident of Flago Village, PO Pipu, PS Chayang Tajo, East Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP
represented by the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, 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
Date : 23.07.2026 (Kardak Ete, J)
Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned Amicus Curiae for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 1681 days in filing the connected criminal appeal Page No.# 2/2 from jail against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Court, Bomdila, West Kameng, in Case No. 17/2012, whereby the applicant/appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/392/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 of the India Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years with fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code with default stipulation. We have perused the grounds and the explanation for condonation of delay in filing the connected criminal appeal from jail within the prescribed period of limited. Upon consideration, we are satisfied that the applicant/appellant has sufficiently explained the cause of delay. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 1681 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal stands condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant