Meghalaya High Court

Crl.M.C./85/2026 of BIJOY HAJONG Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA on 15 May 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

No. 01 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.M.C. No. 85 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 Shri. Bijoy Hajong, Son of Late Indras Hajong, Resident of Mawiong, Umjapung Rumnong, District East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. …….. Petitioner - Vs- State of Meghalaya

Serial No. 01

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Crl.M.C. No. 85 of 2026

Date of Decision: 15.05.2026

Shri. Bijoy Hajong,

Son of Late Indras Hajong,

Resident of Mawiong, Umjapung Rumnong,

District East Khasi Hills,

Meghalaya.

…….. Petitioner

- Vs-

State of Meghalaya represented by its

Secretary Home (Police) Department,

Meghalaya.

……… Respondent

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)

:

Mr. M.F. Qureshi, Legal Aid Counsel.

For the Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R. Gurung, GA.

Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA.

i)

Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii)

Whether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Heard Mr. M.F. Qureshi, 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 23.10.2025 and related order of sentence dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), East Khasi Hills. Shillong in Sessions Case No. 7 (T) 2025, wherein, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 7 years with fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only, and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment of 4(four) months for an offence punishable under Section 376(1) IPC.

2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 142 days has occurred, due to circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant, since his family members did not come forward to assist him to file an appeal as they were not having sufficient means to engage a private counsel. 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. R. Gurung, learned GA 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 142 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.

Judge

2026:MLHC:474 Digitally signed by DARIKORDOR NARY Date: 2026.05.15 19:31:25 IST Signature Not Verified

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead