Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/28/2026 of SHRI ABDUL SALAM Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR on 22 September 2026
GAHC020004782026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/28/2026 SHRI ABDUL SALAM S/O LATE ABDUL BAREK, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF EKRANIPATHAR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND - 797112 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR PUBLIC
GAHC020004782026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/28/2026
SHRI ABDUL SALAM
S/O LATE ABDUL BAREK, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF EKRANIPATHAR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND - 797112
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND
2:SHRI SHIV KUMAR PRASAD (FIR
INFORMANT)
S/O SHRI DAROGA PRASAD
R/O PUDUM PUKHURI VILLAGE
DIMAPUR
NAGALAND - 79711
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. N. M. Konyak, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Mere, P.P.
Mr. Lelimthong P. Yimchunger, Advocate
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
HONBLE MRS JUSTICE HELEN DAWNGLIANI
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 : 23.09.2026 (D.Baruah, J.)
This is an application filed seeking condonation of the delay of 521 days in preferring the accompanying Appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Dimapur in G.R. Case No. 617/2022 arising out of Women P.S., Dimapur Case No. 015/2022 whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 376AB of the IPC read with Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years under Section 376AB of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months; and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the POCSO Act with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which to undergo 3 months of simple imprisonment and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6(l)(m) of the POCSO Act with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which to undergo three months of simple imprisonment.
2. We have duly perused the reasons assigned for the delay in preferring the accompanying Appeal.
3. We have also taken note of that the Appellant did not have the resources to prefer the Appeal and it is only on the basis of the Legal Aid Counsel, the Appeal could be filed.
4. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for condoning the delay of 521 days in preferring the accompanying Appeal.
5. Accordingly, the delay of 521 days in preferring the accompanying Appeal is hereby condoned.
6. With the above observation, the I.A. stands allowed.
J U D G E J U D G E Comparing Assistant