Meghalaya High Court
Crl.M.C./162/2025 of STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs KIAL BHOI on 19 August 2026
2026:MLHC:909
No. 02 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.M.C. No. 162 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.08.2026 State of Meghalaya, represented by The Public Prosecutor. .…….. Appellant/Applicant -Vs- Shri. Kial Bhoi, Son of Shri. Siril Muiai, Resident of Mukroh Pohtriang Village,
Serial No. 02
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.M.C. No. 162 of 2025
Date of Decision: 19.08.2026
State of Meghalaya, represented by
The Public Prosecutor.
.…….. Appellant/Applicant
-Vs-
Shri. Kial Bhoi,
Son of Shri. Siril Muiai,
Resident of Mukroh Pohtriang Village,
Laskein Block,
West Jaintia Hills District,
Meghalaya – 793150.
……… Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s)
:
Mrs. N.G. Shylla, Sr. GA with
Ms. S. Kh. Nongrum, GA.
For the Respondent(s)
:
Mr. S. Chanda, LAC.
i)
Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii)
Whether approved for publication
in press:
Yes/No
Per W. Diengdoh, (J):
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mrs. N.G. Shylla, learned Sr. GA assisted by Ms. S. Kh.
Page 1 of 2
Nongrum, learned GA for the State applicant, who has submitted that the applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment and related order of sentence dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2022, whereby, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 326 and 302 IPC.
2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 92 days has occurred, due to the fact that the certified copy of the said impugned judgment and related order of sentence passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai was received by the applicant belatedly. In view of the aforesaid reasons which were beyond the control of the applicant, he could not prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. It is therefore prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted.
3. Mr. S. Chanda, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection to the prayer for condonation of the delay.
4. On consideration of the submission made, we are persuaded to allow this application on being satisfied that the grounds cited for the delay contain sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 92 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
5. Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list it for admission after 1(one) week.
6. Misc. Case disposed of.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh)
Judge Judge
2026:MLHC:909-DB Digitally signed by DARIKORDOR NARY Date: 2026.08.19 17:25:29 IST Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…