Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/173/2026 of SRI SANJOY URANG Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 24 March 2026
GAHC010020822026 2026:GAU-AS:4491-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/173/2026 SRI SANJOY URANG SON OF LATE JIGRU URANG, RESIDENT OF VILL OUPHALIA ALI KINAR, P.STINGKHONG, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786613. VERSUS
GAHC010020822026
2026:GAU-AS:4491-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/173/2026
SRI SANJOY URANG
SON OF LATE JIGRU URANG, RESIDENT OF VILL OUPHALIA ALI KINAR, P.STINGKHONG, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786613.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, 2:SRI RAM URANG
S/O- LATE BUTU URANG
RESIDENT OF VILL OUPHALIA ALI KINAR
P.S- TINGKHONG
DISTRICTDIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN- 786613.
2:RAM URANG
S/O LATE BUTU URANG
R/O VILL. OUPHALIA ALI KINAR
P.S. TINGKHONG
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 78661
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KALITA, H BORUAH,MR. N M DAS,MR. J HATIMURIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
25.03.2026 Heard Mr M Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. Notice in the interlocutory application (criminal) had been issued on 23.02.2026, fixing today for report on service of notice.
3. The Office Note dated 18.03.2026 reflects that an acceptance notice has been received by the Registry.
4. None appears for the respondent No. 2 today.
5. This interlocutory application has been instituted for condonation of delay of 57 days in filing the connected criminal appeal.
6. The grounds given are that the appellant being in jail, he took some time for the family to arrange for the appeal to be filed.
7. In view of the statements made in the IA(Crl.), this Court deems it fit to condone the delay caused in filing of the criminal appeal.
8. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
9. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
10. Registry to register the criminal appeal and list the same along with the connected interlocutory application.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant