Shri. Rifull Sutnga vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 1 April, 2026

Meghalaya High Court

Shri. Rifull Sutnga vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 1 April, 2026

Author: W. Diengdoh

Bench: W. Diengdoh

                                                          2026:MLHC:287-DB

 Serial No. 06
 Regular List



                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                            AT SHILLONG

Crl.M.C.No.43 of 2026                               Date of Order: 01.04.2026
       Shri. Rifull Sutnga, Aged about 31 years
       Son of (L) Cho Lamare
       Resident of Daisrong Village,
       P.S. Saipung, East Jaintia Hills, District
                                                       .....Applicant
                         -VERSUS-
       State of Meghalaya represented by
       The Commissioner & Secretary to the
       Department of Home (Police)
       Government of Meghalaya, Shillong-793001
                                               .....Respondent
Coram:
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)   : Ms. E. Gurung, Legal Aid Counsel

For the Respondent(s)             : Mr. R. Gurung, GA


i)     Whether approved for reporting in                     Yes/No
       Law journals etc.:
ii)    Whether approved for publication                      Yes/No
       in press:




                                                                      Page 1 of 2
                                                                                 2026:MLHC:287-DB

                   Per W. Diengdoh, (J):

                                            JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Ms. E. Gurung, learned counsel, who has submitted that the
applicant has preferred an appeal before this Court, against the impugned
judgment and order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the Court of learned
Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat in Special
POCSO Case No.60 of 2020.

2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 649 days has
occurred, the reason being that the counsel for the applicant received the
papers/documents regarding the instant accused person after the
prescribed period of limitation. It is therefore, prayed that the delay be
condoned and the appeal be admitted.

SPONSORED

3. Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the State-respondent has
no objection to the prayer for condonation of delay.

4. On consideration of the submission made, we find that there are
good grounds for the appeal to be heard on merits. Accordingly, the delay
of 649 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.

                          (B. Bhattacharjee)                                    (W. Diengdoh)
                               Judge                                                Judge


                   Meghalaya
                   01.04.2026
                    "Shrity,PS"




Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SHRITY
CH MOMIN                                                                                   Page 2 of 2
Date: 2026.04.01 18:03:37 IST