Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/45/2024 of The State of Mizoram Vs Sh. Zonunpuia and 2 Ors. on 5 August 2026
GAHC030005762024 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030005762024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/45/2024
The State of Mizoram
R/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Home Department, Mizoram
VERSUS
Sh. Zonunpuia and 2 Ors.
S/o Lalsuihnuna
R/o Zokhawthar
Champhai District, Mizoram 2:Smt. Remruatpuii 3:Sh. Kawllianngai Advocate for the Petitioner : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte for R1 & R3
Linked Case : Crl.Pet./23/2024
The State of Mizoram
R/b Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram
Home Department
Aizawl
VERSUS
Sh. Zonunpuia and 2 Ors.
S/o Lalsuihnuna
R/o Zokhawthar
Champhai District
2:Smt. Remruatpuii
D/o Salianthanga
R/o Tahan B Group
Myanmar
3:Sh. Kawllianngaia
S/o Lalsawithuama
R/o Janakpur
New Delhi
Advocate for the Petitioner : P.P./Addl.PP
Mizoram
Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte for R1 & R3
B E F O R E
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
06.08.2026
Heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram. Also heard Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 2 as the Legal Aid Counsel appointed by this Court, since the respondent No. 2 has remained unserved as she is an admitted citizen of a neighboring country.
2. This is an application praying for condonation of delay accompanying Crl.Pet. No. 23/2024. The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of paragraph-II along with sub-paragraphs to submit that the delay of 56 days in filing the accompanying Criminal Petition was wholly attributable to official processes and the respondent authorities did not in any manner caused deliberate delay or laches in filing the accompanying Criminal Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 has submitted the explanation of delay is not wholesome and deserves to be rejected.
4. I have gone through the contents of the grounds for condonation of delay given in the petition and there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay and decide the Criminal Petition on merits.
5. Accordingly, the delay of 56 days in preferring the connected Criminal Petition is condoned.
6. Registry to list the Criminal Petition on its turn.
7. I.A is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant