DAYARAM KANDA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Advocate - PP, ASSAM — I.A.(Crl.)/566/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section SEC. 5. Status: Orders. Next hearing: : -.

Orders Next hearing —

CNR: GAHC010102592026

e-Filing Number

21-05-2026

Filing Number

I.A.(Crl.)/4396/2026

Filing Date

22-May-2026

Registration No

I.A.(Crl.)/566/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Nelson Sailo , Honourable Mr. Justice Rajesh Mazumdar

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Nelson Sailo , Honourable Mr. Justice Rajesh Mazumdar

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

10302 - Interlocutory Application (Criminal) ( 383 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section SEC. 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DAYARAM KANDA

    Adv. MR. C CHAKRAVARTY,MR B P SARMAH,MR B P SARMAH, ,S J KALITA,B SAHA,MR B P SARMAH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Advocate - PP (Public Prosecutor), ASSAM

  2. 2.LILADHAR KANDA

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Nelson Sailo,honourable Mr. Justice Rajesh MazumdarView PDF

    Case Summary: I.A.(Crl.)/566/2026 Dayaram Kanda sought condonation of 82 days' delay in filing an appeal against his conviction under IPC Section 302 and life sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margherita on 28.11.2025. The Gauhati High Court issued notice returnable in three weeks, directed service upon respondents, and adjourned the matter for further hearing, allowing respondents to file objections. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. I.A.(Crl.)/566/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: I.A.(Crl.)/566/2026 Dayaram Kanda sought condonation of 82 days' delay in filing an appeal against his conviction under IPC Section 302 and life sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margherita on 28.11.2025. The Gauhati High Court issued notice returnable in three weeks, directed service upon respondents, and adjourned the matter for further hearing, allowing respondents to file objections. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case