DAPBIANG LYTEP AD SHARMA, LAC vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. Advocate - N.G. SHYLLA, SR. GA MEGHALAYA — Crl.M.C./94/2026

Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 01st June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: MLHC010008172026

Filing Number

Crl.M.C./280/2026

Filing Date

21-May-2026

Registration No

Crl.M.C./94/2026

Registration Date

21-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

01-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DAPBIANG LYTEP AD SHARMA, LAC

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR. Advocate - N.G. SHYLLA, SR. GA (Government Advocate) MEGHALAYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. DiengdohView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Meghalaya condoned a 502-day delay in filing an appeal by Dapbiang Lytep, who was convicted of offences under IPC Sections 436 (arson) and 506 Part-I (criminal intimidation), sentenced to six years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. The court accepted that the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the appellant's control—his illiteracy, remote location, limited legal access, and financial constraints—and that his family was unaware of proper legal procedures. With no objection from the State, the court found sufficient cause and admitted the appeal for consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Jun-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh

  4. 21-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.M.C./94/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Meghalaya condoned a 502-day delay in filing an appeal by Dapbiang Lytep, who was convicted of offences under IPC Sections 436 (arson) and 506 Part-I (criminal intimidation), sentenced to six years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. The court accepted that the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the appellant's control—his illiteracy, remote location, limited legal access, and financial constraints—and that his family was unaware of proper legal procedures. With no objection from the State, the court found sufficient cause and admitted the appeal for consideration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case