MD Rafikul Islam Vs the State of Assam

[1] Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Laskar, the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶19

[2] This interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Rafikul Islam, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 551 days in preferring the connected criminal revision petition against the judgment and order dated 12.05.2023, passed by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Criminal Appeal No. 12(2)/2023.

¶20

[3] The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS01FC-8243 belonging to the applicant was seized in connection with G.R .Case No. 749/2022, corresponding to Bihpuria P.S. Case No. 129/2022. Thereafter, the applicant/petitioner approached the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur seeking Zimma of the said vehicle. However, by its order dated 02.03.2023, the said court rejected the prayer for Zimma. Against the said order, the present applicant/petitioner preferred an appeal before the court

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. Same was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 12(2)/2023.

¶23

[4] The learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal filed by the present applicant was allowed, however, though the Zimma of the seized vehicle was granted to the present applicant, a condition of furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) was imposed, which according to learned senior counsel is a cumbersome condition and has been imposed due to wrong interpretation of the applicable law. The said order is impugned in the connected criminal revision petition.

¶24

[5] The reasons for delay in preferring the connected revision petition has been stated by the applicant in paragraph No. 4 of the instant interlocutory application, namely, the applicant was suffering from ailments and had to be under constant medical treatment.

¶25

[6] The learned senior counsel for the applicant has further submitted that recently the applicant has been evicted from his home State land and in the process he has misplaced medical documents and, therefore, could not annexed, along with the instant interlocutory application.

¶26

[7] On the other hand, the learned Additional

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

Public Prosecutor, Assam has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay saying that the delay involved in this case is a huge delay of 551 days.

¶29

[8] He further submits that though the applicant has taken ground of ailment, however, no medical document has been furnished to substantiate the said ground.

¶30

[9] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. The applicant intends to impugn the order by which the Zimma of the vehicle of which he is the registered owner was granted to him. However, on onerous condition of giving bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- /-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) though the applicant has not annexed any medical document to support to the contention of his ailments, however, the averments made in this interlocutory application are supported by an affidavit and since, this is an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is taken by this court, so that the criminal petition filed by the applicant can be disposed of on merits.

¶31

[10] Accordingly, the delay of 551 days in preferring the connected revision petition is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed.

¶32

[11] The Registry is directed to register the

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

connected Revision Petition and list the same for admission on 24^th June, 2026.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

MD Rafikul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Rafikul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Sanat Kr. Pal and 3 Ors.

Parash Mani Das Vs the State of Assam

Nava Mahanta Vs the State of Assam

Nazir Kazi Alias Boga Alias Syed Nazir Kazi Vs the State of Assam

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kritanjali Dutta and 6 Ors.

Manik Ali Vs the State of Assam