Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/946/2026 of M/S. BAPU ELECTRONICS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. on 15 September 2026
GAHC010195022026 2026:GAU-AS:13743 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/946/2026 M/S. BAPU ELECTRONICS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR BAHARUL ISLAM, S/O MD. IBRAHIM ALI, RESIDENT OF GOROIMARI SATRA, P.O. TUKAPARA, P.S.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010195022026
2026:GAU-AS:13743
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/946/2026
M/S. BAPU ELECTRONICS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR BAHARUL ISLAM, S/O MD. IBRAHIM ALI, RESIDENT OF GOROIMARI SATRA, P.O. TUKAPARA, P.S. CHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM,
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:JAKIR HUSSAIN
S/O SABUR UDDIN
PROPRIETOR OF JUMI MOBILE
VILLAGE SAMORIYA PAM
P.O. MAHTOLI, P.S. BOKO, PIN-781136
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARMAH, MR. MD I HAQUE,MR. S SINGH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
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
16.09.2026 Heard Mr. S.J. Saharia, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1.
Page No.# 2/2
2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is preferred by the applicant, namely, M/s Bapu Electronics, represented by its proprietor Baharul Islam, for condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring connected criminal appeal under Section 419 of the BNSS, 2023 against the judgment dated 22.09.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(R), Amingaon, in Complaint Case No.222/2018, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.2.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was suffering from illness from 18.11.2025 to 03.01.2026, for which he could not contact with his engaged counsel and accordingly, he could not file the appeal within the period of 60 days from the date of judgment dated 22.09.2025 and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and he has enclosed the medical document as Annexure-2 and perusal of the said medical document indicates that the applicant was suffering from uric acid and chronic gastritis from 18.11.2025 to 03.01.2026.
4. Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. submits that he has no objection in the event of condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal.
5. In view of the explanation, so forthcoming for the delay in preferring the connected appeal and also considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that the delay is sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned.
6. I.A. stands disposed of.
7. Now the Registry will register and number the connected appeal and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE