Allowed

Raj Chatriya v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026I.A.(Crl.)/1291/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order of the Gauhati High Court condoning a 289-day delay in filing a criminal appeal against a POCSO conviction. The court deemed the delay caused by financial constraints and absence of legal counsel to be bona fide, admitting the appeal for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 289 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal was condoned; the appeal was registered and listed for admission.

Raj Chatriya Vs the State of Assam and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010254662025

2026:GAU-AS:13651

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1291/2025

¶6

RAJ CHATRIYA

¶7

S/O SRI SAMAN CHATRIYA, R/O JAMUGURI TEA ESTATE, 3 NO. LINE P.S. JAMUGURI, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.

¶10

2:RAJESH SONA S/O LATE ADI SONA VILL. BALIJAN TEA ESTAE P.S. GILADHARI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A BRAHMA, MR S H SIKDAR,MR. A DEKA,MS N J BEGUM,MS F HUSSAIN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, DARAK ULLAH, AMICUS CURIAE(R-2)

¶13

Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0

¶14

RAJ CHATRIYA S/O SRI SAMAN CHATRIYA R/O JAMUGURI TEA ESTATE 3 NO. LINE P.S. JAMUGURI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM.

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM. 2:RAJESH SONA S/O LATE ADI SONA VILL. BALIJAN TEA ESTATE P.S. GILADHARI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM.

¶18

-----------Advocate for : MR. ANUPAM BRAHMA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶20

ORDER

¶21

15.09.2026

¶22

1. Heard Mr. S.H. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/applicant. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP for the State of Assam and Ms. D. Borah, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. D. Ullah, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶23

2. By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the petitioner has prayed for condonation of the delay of 289 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Golaghat in Special (P) Case No. 53/2019.

¶24

3. By the said judgment and order, the petitioner was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

¶27

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/applicant submits that the delay was caused due to genuine and bona fide reasons, which have been set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the instant application. It is stated therein that after the judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 was passed the family members of the applicant were informed that the appeal was required to be preferred within a period of 90 days and that the District Legal Services Authority was approached for engaging a lawyer for preferring the appeal. It is further stated that due to financial constraints and in the absence of any capable family member who could come down to Guwahati the appeal could not be preferred within the prescribed period of limitation. Subsequently, a family member came down to Guwahati and met the learned counsel resulting in the delay of 289 days in preferring the appeal.

¶28

5. Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned APP in his usual fairness submits that the connected appeal may be heard on merits by this Court. A similar submission has been made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

¶29

6. The reasons stated by the learned counsel for the applicant for the delay are found to be satisfactory. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to condone the delay of 289 days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶30

7. The Registry shall register the appeal and list the same for admission.

¶31

8. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Raj Chatriya v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Chatriya v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases