Allowed

M/S. Bapu Electronics v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2026I.A.(Crl.)/946/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought condonation of a 43-day delay in filing a criminal appeal under Section 419 of the BNSS, 2023. The applicant cited illness as the cause for the delay. The High Court accepted the explanation and condoned the delay, disposing of the application and directing registry registration of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal granted.

M/S. Bapu Electronics Vs the State of Assam… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010195022026

2026:GAU-AS:13743

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/946/2026

¶6

M/S. BAPU ELECTRONICS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR BAHARUL ISLAM, S/O MD. IBRAHIM ALI, RESIDENT OF GOROIMARI SATRA, P.O. TUKAPARA, P.S. CHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM,

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:JAKIR HUSSAIN S/O SABUR UDDIN PROPRIETOR OF JUMI MOBILE VILLAGE SAMORIYA PAM P.O. MAHTOLI, P.S. BOKO, PIN-781136 DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARMAH, MR. MD I HAQUE,MR. S SINGH

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶14

ORDER

¶15

16.09.2026

¶16

Heard Mr. S.J. Saharia, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1.

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is preferred by the applicant, namely, M/s Bapu Electronics, represented by its proprietor Baharul Islam, for condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring connected criminal appeal under Section 419 of the BNSS, 2023 against the judgment dated 22.09.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(R), Amingaon, in Complaint Case No.222/2018, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.2.

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was suffering from illness from 18.11.2025 to 03.01.2026, for which he could not contact with his engaged counsel and accordingly, he could not file the appeal within the period of 60 days from the date of judgment dated 22.09.2025 and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and he has enclosed the medical document as Annexure-2 and perusal of the said medical document indicates that the applicant was suffering from uric acid and chronic gastritis from 18.11.2025 to 03.01.2026.

¶20

4. Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. submits that he has no objection in the event of condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶21

5. In view of the explanation, so forthcoming for the delay in preferring the connected appeal and also considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that the delay is sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned.

¶22

6. I.A. stands disposed of.

¶23

7. Now the Registry will register and number the connected appeal and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable.

¶24

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

M/S. Bapu Electronics v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Bapu Electronics 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases