Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 27.03.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Through The on 27 March, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:283
Serial No. 05
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.M.C. No. 45 of 2026
Date of Decision: 27.03.2026
Shri Pranesh Chandra Roy Chakraborty,
Son of (L) KR R Chakraborty,
(Convict presently serving sentence
at District Jail, Tura),
Resident of Dobasipara Dobakkol,
West Garo Hills District,
Tura, Meghalaya.
........ Applicant/Petitioner
- Vs-
State of Meghalaya through the
Commissioner & Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya,
Department of Home (Police),
Civil Secretariat, Shillong.
......... Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Chanda, Adv.
Mr. S. Khyriem, Adv. vice
Ms. R. Dutta, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. A.D. Syiem, GA.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
1
2026:MLHC:283
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. S. Chanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. R.
Dutta, 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 and order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Court of
the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Garo Hills, Tura in Special POCSO
Case No. 24 of 2021 under Section 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act.
2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 953 days has occurred,
due to circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant, inasmuch as,
there was no support from his family members/relatives, as such, he could not
prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thereafter, a Legal
Aid Counsel was provided to him, and eventually, the appeal was prepared by
the Legal Aid Counsel. It is therefore prayed that the delay be condoned and the
appeal be admitted.
3. Ms. A.D. Syiem, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has
submitted that there is no sufficient cause shown to sustain 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
2
2026:MLHC:283
contain sufficient cause, notwithstanding the submission of the learned GA.
5. Accordingly, the delay of 953 days in preferring the appeal is hereby
condoned.
6. Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list it for admission after
1(one) week.
7. Misc. Case disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 3
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.03.27 16:39:27 IST
