Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/17/2026 of SHRI ZHOPA KEYHO Vs THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR on 23 June 2026
GAHC020001822026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/17/2026 SHRI ZHOPA KEYHO S/O LATE VEPOCHO KEYHO, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF OLD PHEK VILLAGE, PHEK, NAGALAND - 797108 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR P.P.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC020001822026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/17/2026
SHRI ZHOPA KEYHO
S/O LATE VEPOCHO KEYHO, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF OLD PHEK
VILLAGE, PHEK, NAGALAND - 797108
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR
P.P. NAGALAND
2:SHRI KELUNGTHINWI RENTTA (INFORMANT)
S/O LUNGKIUBO RENTTA
R/O OF MISSION COMPOUND WARD
PO/PS-PHEK
NAGALAND - 79710
Advocate for the Petitioner : KEVISERIENUO, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
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 : 24.06.2026 (NELSON SAILO, J)
At the outset, Ms. S. Mere, learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland, submits that the respondent No. 2, who is the complainant has received the notice and that the respondent No. 2 in fact was the Officer-on-Duty who had received the information.
Page No.# 2/2 She also submits that she will therefore be representing the respondent No. 2. In view of above, notice upon the respondent No. 2 is complete. Heard Mr. Nocklei M. Konyak, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that by filing this application, the applicant seeks for condonation of 271 days delay in filing the connected appeal. Referring to the application, the learned counsel submits that the delay is on account of bona-fide reasons and there is no negligence or laches on the part of the applicant in filing the appeal. The learned counsel submits that under such circumstance the delay of 271 days may be condoned. Ms. S. Mere, learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland, submits that she has no objection if the delay is condoned and that the matter may be heard on merits. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the statements made in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay of 271 days in filing the connected appeal. Accordingly, the delay stands condoned. The interlocutory application stands disposed of as allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant