Meghalaya High Court
Crl.M.C./94/2026 of DAPBIANG LYTEP Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. on 1 June 2026
of 3 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.M.C.No.94/2026 Date of order: 01.06.2026 Dapbiang Lytep ..... Appellant Vs. 1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Home
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.M.C.No.94/2026
Date of order: 01.06.2026
Dapbiang Lytep ..... Appellant
Vs.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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.
1. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Home (Police), Shillong. ..... Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
For the Applicant:
Ms. A.D. Sharma, LAC
For the Respondent(s): Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl.PP with
Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, Addl.PP
ORDER: (Oral)
Heard Ms. A.D. Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that the applicant has filed an appeal before this Court, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2024 and related order of sentence dated 13.11.2024, passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, East Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, in Sessions Case No.1 of 2023, wherein, he was directed to Serial No.03 Regular List undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of six years for an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 506 Part-1 IPC.
2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 502 days has occurred, due to circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant, since he is illiterate and hails from a remote area with very limited access to legal assistance and financial means. The appellant’s family was unaware of the proper legal procedure and was also unable to arrange for legal aid counsel in a timely manner. As such, he could not prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thereafter, legal aid was sought for, and accordingly, this application was processed through a Legal Aid Counsel. It is therefore prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted.
3. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl.PP appearing for the State respondent has no objection to the prayer for condonation of the delay.
4. On consideration of the submission made, this Court is inclined to allow this application on being satisfied that the grounds cited for the delay contain sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 502 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. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.No.94 of 2026 stands disposed of.
(W. Diengdoh) Judge
Meghalaya 01.06.2026 “Lam DR-PS”
2026:MLHC:507 Digitally signed by LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY Date: 2026.06.01 18:23:29 IST Signature Not Verified